CWP

[Bud Helms]

Let's get this into the L&CR forum.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. In TX, you couldn't have a concealed handgun in your car unless you were traveling - whatever that meant.

2. You couldn't carry it concealed out of your car.

3. We recently passed a law so you can have a gun in your car.

4. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a gun in her car. She watched her parents die because the gun was in her car outside of the Kileen Luby's.

5. She campaigned with others and thank you - we now have the CHL system.

6. So you can carry OUTSIDE of your car and NOT break the law.

7. Not having a CCW permit or CHL but worrying about having an arsenal in your car is rather foolish.

[Don P]

"With the exception of (I think) Vermont you cannot legally have a loaded weapon in your vehicle. CCW

Here we go again with the poppy cock foolishness of some at the keyboard without knowing and some believing what they read.
Down here in sunny FLA anyone who can LEGALLY OWN a handgun can carry said hand gun in their vehicle whether they are a resident or NOT. It must be in the glove box, console with the door closed so the gun is not visible, or a tupper ware container with a lid on it. So the above quote is total poppy cock as I stated.

[wally626]

Perhaps I am misreading the OP, but I think the question is. Is there any advantage to having a CWP system over just allowing people to carry without permits like Alaska and Vermont like plain reading of the second amendment would indicate? I myself do not see very many advantages, the only minor ones are to add some tack-on charges to someone caught for some other crime or giving LEO a cause to search suspicious characters if they flash a concealed weapon and I think many would call these disadvantages of the current system. Requiring citizens to obtain permits to keep or bear arms does not keep criminal from getting weapons or carrying them.

The state laws on bearing weapons both on foot and in cars are very diversified, so just read-up on your state and others before carrying.

[NavyLT]

So if we make the question, what are the advantages of having a CWP system which permits persons to carry concealed, my answer would be there is none. Carrying a gun is a right - not something that a person should have to get governmental permission to do - either concealed or open carry.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Practically, the shall issue system has greatly advanced gun rights by getting folks to carry. That increases their safety.

It has also greatly aided the firearms industry from a consumer demand.

It also has made the issue of gun rights come to forefront and support that civilians can safely carry guns.

So, one can ignore the practical for the righteous. That certainly is useful.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by NavyLT

...what are the advantages of having a CWP system which permits persons to carry concealed, my answer would be there is none ....

In real life, it can keep me from going to jail for carrying a gun illeagally. I consider that a good thing.

[NavyLT]

In real life, it can keep me from going to jail for carrying a gun illeagally. I consider that a good thing.

Fiddletown,

In Alaska or Vermont just exactly how would one go to jail for carrying a gun illegally, if you were lawful to possess that gun, as in being in compliance with 18 USC 922(g)? If all states were such as Alaska or Vermont which do not require CWP's to carry openly or concealed, it would be virtually impossible for a person not prohibited from possessing a gun to carry that gun in an illegal manner.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by NavyLT

In Alaska or Vermont just exactly how would one go to jail for carrying a gun illegally, if you were lawful to possess that gun,...

That leaves 48 states and the District of Columbia, in several of which a private citizen can't lawfully carry at all, or in which his chances of getting a permit are vanishingly small.

Originally Posted by NavyLT

..If all states were such as Alaska or Vermont which do not require CWP's to carry openly or concealed, it would be virtually impossible for a person not prohibited from possessing a gun to carry that gun in an illegal manner....

But all states aren't like Alaska or Vermont, and that's the point.

[NavyLT]

I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by wally626

Perhaps I am misreading the OP, but I think the question is. Is there any advantage to having a CWP system over just allowing people to carry without permits like Alaska and Vermont like plain reading of the second amendment would indicate?

And stating that I do not believe there is any advantage to having a CWP system over just allowing people to carry without permits.

[Frank Ettin]

I was responding to this:

And stating that I do not believe there is any advantage to having a CWP system over just allowing people to carry without permits.

There are a couple way to look at that.

[1] That's really not the correct reading of the OP's question. His original question was

Originally Posted by i50sx

Whats the benefit of having a CWP??

Cant a guy/gal carry a gun in their car anyway??

I have trouble reading that as a question about a having a system, especially with the reference to being able to carry in one's car.

[2] Even if wally626 is correct about the question, there are probably more than a few states that now have a "shall issue" system in which an Alaska/Vermont type system would not have been politically feasible. In those states, private citizens would not be able to carry, or at least carry concealed, without some sort of licensing arrangement.

[NavyLT]

Well, to avoid all confusion, I will answer the question, "What are the advantages of obtaining a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) in the state in which I live, Washington?"

1. It allows me to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle and allows me to conceal that loaded handgun on my person in the vehicle.

2. It allows me to conceal my firearm in public when I deem it more beneficial to carry concealed vice open carry which is my preferred method.

3. It allows me to be waived from the 5 day waiting period for the purchase of handguns from dealers in Washington.

4. If a city or other municipality operates a stadium or convention center, and they ban handguns in that stadium or convention center, the ban cannot apply to CPL holders by state law.

[Doc Intrepid]

I also live in Washington state.

And IMHO, the four reasons set out by NavyLT above are excellent reasons why anyone who wishes to possess a handgun with which to defend themselves ought to go through the legal process necessary to obtain a concealed carry weapons permit (in Washington state).

Those are some pretty significant advantages... again IMHO.

FWIW

[44 AMP]

First, to the OP's contention that we are having to pay for our rights. Got news for ya, we always do, and always have. With our taxes, at the very least. With special fees and charges sometimes, and in extreme situations, with the blood of patriots. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say we have the right to carry concealed. It does not say handguns. The recent Supreme Court decision (Heller vs DC) upheld the fundamental right to own firearms for personal defense, and government's authority to regulate them, but not to outright prohibit arms "in common use".

So, each state has the authority to regulate the carry of arms as they see fit. As long as you are provided some means to legally own and carry some arms, your rights are not denied, only regulated.

If the law allows you to carry a slung rifle down the street (while not commonly done, its not legally prohibited), but requires you to get a permit and pay to carry a handgun concealed, they are not (in the eyes of the courts) denying you your rights.

Its a fine line, but it is a line, in law.

As to a loaded gun in a car, check carefully the laws where you are. Some places consider a gun "loaded" even when the chamber is empty, Some places consider a gun loaded if there is a loaded magazine "accessible", and it need not be in the gun to meet their definition of loaded.

[NavyLT]

44 amp,

Would you agree, though, that states which make the ONLY lawful way to carry a firearm is with a permit that a person must pay for, and pay for training to obtain that permit as infringing upon those rights? Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Texas are all examples. In order for a person to carry ANY firearm capable of self-defense (I am not talking about an unloaded gun in a case locked up - that is not capable for self defense) they must pay for a permit and possibly training. How is that not an unconstitutional infringement upon their rights?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by NavyLT

Would you agree, though, that states which make the ONLY lawful way to carry a firearm is with a permit that a person must pay for, and pay for training to obtain that permit as infringing upon those rights? .... How is that not an unconstitutional infringement upon their rights?

[1] Although Heller clarified that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, we don't yet have a Supreme Court decision to the effect that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. In fact, so far it does not (see Cruikshank and Presser). We're hoping to change that this year.

[2] It is very well settled in Constitutional law that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited regulation. There is a significant body of cases defining the standard that would apply to determine if a regulation of a Constitutionally protected right is permissible.

[3] There are several levels of scrutiny thus far applied to regulation of various types of Constitutionally protected rights. Regulations of a Constitutionally protected, fundamental right, which has generally included those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are subject to a test usually referred to as "strict scrutiny." There are three prongs to this test, as follows:

[a] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[b] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[c] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

[4] While it's not yet been established that strict scrutiny will be applied to regulation of rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, let's assume it does. That would be the best result for us.

[5] In such case, I wouldn't be inclined to bet that a State might not be able to make a case that a licensing requirement, including required training, an age threshold and background check, to lawfully carry a loaded gun in public, as long as on a "shall issue" basis, passes even strict scrutiny. (I have no doubt that a "may issue" scheme would not.)

[NavyLT]

Fiddletown,

May I offer this counter argument.

A must issue licensing system required to carry a firearm in any manner does not pass the government interest test. There is no government interest in licensing the carry of lawfully possessed firearms - it is already illegal for felons to possess firearms anyway. The government has already exercised it's interest in the existing purchase and possession laws.

The same is true for the age rule. Age limits regarding the possession of firearms are already in place, a system of licensure for carrying does not do anything in government interest that is not already done.

The permit system is also unconstitutional in that it is not the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal. Why? Because not everybody can afford the permit. What if we required a $50 to $200 license to vote? Would that pass the restrictiveness test? The permit system unnecessarily restricts those that can't afford the permit and/or training.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by NavyLT

...There is no government interest in licensing the carry of lawfully possessed firearms - it is already illegal for felons to possess firearms anyway...

That's not really the point. I suspect that the State would argue that its interest in licensing persons to lawfully carry loaded guns in public relates to public safety. I could conceive of the State arguing that it's appropriate to require, as a condition of carrying a loaded gun in public, that a citizen first demonstrate that he can safely handle a gun, that he has some reasonable minimum level of proficiency and that he has a least a basic understanding of the laws involving the use of deadly force.

Of course neither you nor I know what a State is going to argue such a question gets into court. We're just guessing, and that strikes me as a waste of time at this stage. We haven't even gotten the 2nd Amendment incorporated yet.

In any case, it's pointless for us to debate whether or not that represents a compelling governmental interest or whether it's properly served by a licensing requirement. If and when the question gets to court, it doesn't matter what you or I might argue; it matters what the parties argue. And it doesn't matter what you or I conclude; it matters what the court concludes.

[NavyLT]

That's true, but I don't think it is a waste of time to discuss the issues But, I suppose we could also discuss whether or not it is a waste of time all day long, too!

[wally626]

In VA the permit system offers advantages to a holder over a non holder, but serves no real purpose to the Commonwealth as whole over just not requiring permits. There are very few persons who could legally posses a gun and thus open carry in the Commonwealth who could not qualify for a concealed pistol permit. Those between the age of 18 and 21 and some persons convicted of a few misdemeanor offenses. Most out-of state persons would also qualify for a non-resident permit or have their own state permits recognized anyway. From a practical standpoint, I do not see the supreme Court requiring non-permit concealed carry or open carry or the Commonwealth passing a Alaska type carry law. I think we can assume the 2nd amendment applying to the states, and hopefully requiring shall issue permits without to burdensome requirements.

[Doc Intrepid]

Actually, I don't think the discussion is a waste of time - remember, not long ago concerns were raised over state control (fees/permits) over ammunition and primers, etc.

I suppose that the conversation going on might hinge on how you define the word "bear"...

You have a constitutional right to "bear" arms...

what precisely does "bear" mean in a legal sense: bear where? bear when? (bear how?)



The matter of constitutionality might, as NavyLT notes, be more clearly debated if the fee for a permit were raised to ludicrous levels -

say something like $20,000 for the permit.

You may have a constitutional right to bear arms, but if you cannot afford the administrative fee levied by the state to do so, then the "right" is moot.

(When is a constitutional right not really a right? When you can't afford it?)

It would certainly seem that an argument could be made that permit fees being required for something that is defined as a "right" are dubious at best.

You have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. Would you pay a required (State) permit fee to join a church?

If, on the other hand, you agree that an administrative fee established by States is legal, so long as it is reasonable, why then you're only dickering over the price of it...

say somewhere between .01c and $20K.

(And, once you agree to that, the State is free to raise the price over time...)

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

...I suppose that the conversation going on might hinge on how you define the word "bear"...

Probably not. Based on established legal doctrine, it will be a question of whether the regulation passes whatever level of scrutiny the Supreme Court decides applies to the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. If it's strict scrutiny, the three prong test is outlined in post #41 would apply.

In any case, the Constitutionality of regulation of rights protected by the 2nd Amendment will no doubt be assessed using one of the levels of scrutiny used by the courts for that purpose when other rights are involved:

[1] Strict scrutiny as outlined in post #41;

[2] Intermediate scrutiny, i. e., does the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest; or

[3] Rational basis, i. e., is a governmental action a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government.

It would be extremely unlikely that we would see the rational basis test applied. That test has not been applied to rights explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

...The matter of constitutionality might, as NavyLT notes, be more clearly debated if the fee for a permit were raised to ludicrous levels -

say something like $20,000 for the permit....

Because a ludicrous fee would not pass strict scrutiny, if that was the level of scrutiny applies. It wouldn't even pass intermediate scrutiny, and probably not even the rational basis test.

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

...It would certainly seem that an argument could be made that permit fees being required for something that is defined as a "right" are dubious at best....

That question would still be one to be decided by application of the level of scrutiny that the Supreme Court decides will apply to the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

...You have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. Would you pay a required (State) permit fee to join a church?...

Perhaps not to join a church. But I do believe that if you want to build a church you must still secure the appropriate building permits.

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

...If, on the other hand, you agree that an administrative fee established by States is legal, so long as it is reasonable, why then you're only dickering over the price of it...

But even the question of price will be considered under the applicable level of scrutiny that the Supreme Court decides will apply to the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[44 AMP]

A man asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it, and decides a million dollars is a lot of money, and tells him that for a million dollars, she would.

Man then asks if she would sleep with him for $10. The woman is outraged, replies, "What kind of woman do you think I am?!"

He answers. "we've already established that, now we are just discussing the price!"

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

..."What kind of woman do you think I am?!"

He answers. "we've already established that, now we are just discussing the price!"

Of course any kind of CWP requirements will infringe the rigth to bear arms. But the courts have a long history of sustaining various infringements of or abridgments of or interferences with Constitutionally protected rights if they pass the applicable level of scrutiny test. And cost could be a factor in that analysis.

[Doc Intrepid]

44 AMP,

Oddly enough, that exact aphorism was going through my mind when I wrote that post!




fiddletown,

Thank you for the edification.


Doc