Okay, not a big fan of the gun thing here, but still a serious question:

[smoogatz]

If it's true that civilian CCW people are more law-abiding than the general populace, and of a higher order in terms of their ability to handle guns responsibly, then that must mean that the screening process/criteria for CCW in most states is working. If that's true, why shouldn't the same criteria be applied to all prospective gun-buyers?

[Warpy]

1. CCW licensing requires people to take a class

in gun safety. It's not much of a class, only a few hours, but it seems to make a difference.

I'd like to see it applied to all gun owners as a requirement to buy ammo. It would be like a driver's license, just show it at the purchase, retake the written test to renew it every few years.

[smoogatz]

4. Works for me. nt

[Endangered Specie]

7. Its more than just gun safety they teach

they teach law on self defense and it includes a round of fire at the line. Why make law abiding gun owners go through more hoops, 99.9% of us know gun safety through and through? Keep in mind this class costs $80 to $100 bucks.

If you're going to do that, you'd better make it paid for by taxpayers money.

Your taxpayer money might be better spent funding better enforcement of current gun laws and tracking down ILLEGAL guns bought by ILLEGAL gun owners.

[provis99]

17. not in Indiana, you don't

I know: I got a CCW permit on a lark; I got one that let me carry a concealed weapon both in town, and on the IU campus. All I had to do was pay a $10 fee and sign my name that I hadn't been convicted of a violent felony in Indiana in the past ten years. The background check took all of five minutes, and then I could have walked out and bought a Dirty Harry Special to carry on campus. Never got a gun, I just wanted to see if they would give any clown a gun permit (they didn't even ask about any mental illness I might have had; apparently, a bipolar paranoid schizoid can get a gun as easily as me. The CCW process in Indiana is a joke.

[SteveM]

21. Hell, I don't think Vermont's laws even address the subject. Huge crime rate.

[Turbo Teg]

29. Exactly.

Lots of crime in the most peaceful state.

[gorfle]

30. Not such a joke...

I know: I got a CCW permit on a lark; I got one that let me carry a concealed weapon both in town, and on the IU campus. All I had to do was pay a $10 fee and sign my name that I hadn't been convicted of a violent felony in Indiana in the past ten years. The background check took all of five minutes, and then I could have walked out and bought a Dirty Harry Special to carry on campus. Never got a gun, I just wanted to see if they would give any clown a gun permit (they didn't even ask about any mental illness I might have had; apparently, a bipolar paranoid schizoid can get a gun as easily as me. The CCW process in Indiana is a joke.

Bear in mind that while they do ask you if you have ever been convicted of a felony or if you are mentally ill, all of your responses are confirmed through the NICS system. In other words, you can't just lie on the application and claim you don't have any convictions or that you are not mentally ill - NICS is supposed to check all of these things.

Obviously, though, mental health issues are not being input into the NICS database.

[Turbo Teg]

28. Sounds like a good idea.

We need to do this with people who want to have babies aswell. If you want to reproduce, both people need to take a parenting class, and pass a test. It would need to be re-upped every time someone wanted another child. You would also need to be financialy assesed to make sure you could afford said child (children).

[Dimensio0]

2. The screening process for obtaining a concealed weapons permit is often...

...not dissimilar to the screening process for purchasing a firearm. In fact, many states allow the possession of a concealed deadly weapons permit to exempt a purchaser from a standard background check -- though firearms merchants are still free to conduct a background check if they so choose (the merchant from whom I purchased my firearm insisted upon performing a background check even though I was in posession of a concealed deadly weapons license at the time of the purchase).

I believe that part of the disparity between the crime rates of those who obtain concealed weapons permits and the population at large, even those who purchase firearms, is that those who obtain a concealed weapons permit are not inherently disposed to irresponsible action. An individual who wishes to disregard the law and behave recklessly with a firearm is not likely to seek to obtain a concealed weapons permit, even if he or she may qualify for one at the time.

[smoogatz]

3. Would that inhibition apply to gun purchases, too

assuming the process was identical?

[Endangered Specie]

11. Well, if your NICS background check comes back as "denied"

thats it, no purchase, I have witnessed several people get denied by NICS at gun shows.

[Endangered Specie]

9. Especially considering its involves several hours of your time and $100

I mean, its not like people who don't have the time/qualifications to get a driver license are stopped by this fact, plenty of uninsured/unlicensed/unregistered motorists out there!

[Endangered Specie]

5. Because not all gun buyers intend to use them as a Consealed Weapon

Much the same reason that one shouldn't require license/registration/insurance for a car that you don't intend to drive on public roads. I collect old military/hunting style rifles, why should I be subject to showing that I am proficient at shooting an attacker in public with them when such an idea is ludicrous?

But, fyi, any gun purchase other than antique or local face-to-face require NICS background checks and, in NC at least, a separate Pistol purchase permit is required for handguns (which, before you say is a good idea, is a remnant of Jim Crow era law, ie, the sheriffs could stop blacks from having guns).

[gateley]

6. Several years ago (in Seattle) after I was almost mugged I decided to get a gun.

I went to a police information class for civilians and learned that essentially a permit to carry a gun IS a concealed weapon permit. We could carry them in our purse, jacket pockets, etc., but couldn't wear them on a belt in a holster, for example.

Never got the gun, but learned a lot.

[Endangered Specie]

8. Interesting, sounds like pretty loose gun laws...

esp for a beautifully blue state! :)

I'm only privy to NC gun laws and I am pretty sure you can't carry any type of gun near your body loaded concealed or otherwise without a permit, and even then there are so many places you can't take your licensed self with a gun on top of that.

[gateley]

13. I may have made it sound looser than they actually are -- I never went

ahead with it. But I believe a permit to CARRY was essentially a permit where you could ONLY carry it concealed.

Plus, this was like 35 years ago, so things may have changed just a TAD. :7

[provis99]

18. you were misinformed by the police then

Openly carrying a firearm is legal in all fifty states. Only a few cities ban a few types of guns; guns that aren't banned you can carry around in public. How else would you get a shotgun from your house to your car, except by carrying it openly, if you don't have a concealed weapon permit?

[ac2007]

19. Wrong.

Legal open carry without a permit is only allowed in a handful of states. Virginia is one of them. Most places require a permit or disallow it (permit or not). If you don't believe me, head north to Maryland and try carrying a firearm (especially a handgun) openly outside of lawful hunting and see how long it takes for you to get arrested.

You do not carry a gun openly from your house to your car. In many places that could be considered "brandishing". In transport, you generally defer to State and Federal laws which generally require arms to be encased and unloaded for purposes of transport. This is not carrying a concealed weapon under most statutes (it is written as a exception to the concealed carry laws explicitly in most areas). But only if cased, away from the driver and unloaded. Place a loaded magazine in the case next to the gun without a permit and you're breaking numerous laws.

[Indy Lurker]

42. it is illegal to open carry in illinois

Open carry in Illinois is a felony, except for when you are hunting, or in a few non-incorporated areas.

To legally transport a firearm in Illinois, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case. Ammunition may be stored in the same case, but again the firearm must be unloaded.

[smoogatz]

10. So what?

The point is the CCW screening apparently does a good job of weeding out those who aren't fit to own firearms, while the NICS background check doesn't seem particularly effective (both the VT and NIU shooters bought their handguns legally, and passed NICS with flying colors). If your collectible guns are still operational, why should you be treated differently from any other gun buyer?

The car argument is lame, btw. The two are in no way analogous. Which is too bad—it'd be a somewhat safer country if the licensing/registration process for guns was as rigorous as the rigamarole you have to endure to legally own and operate a car.

[Endangered Specie]

12. Unfortunately your argument is flawed

in that the CCW screen *IS* the NICS background check. The reason why CCW people are so unlikely to commit a crime with it is, whats the point of a criminal going through a CCW to get a license to carry a gun and commit an illegal act with it, doesn't make much sense does it, if you were the criminal wouldn't you skip the whole process all together and just pack the gun? Both shooters probably could have gotten CCW permits as well.

Keep in mind that Cho was, under the law, not supposed to pass the check but did bc of bureaucratic problems. My collectible guns are four feet long, have 5-10 round fixed magazines and have absolutely no chance of being concealed or being put to effective use in a defensive situation. Why bother training me to shoot a human sized target at 21 feet with it?



Furthermore, I believe the car/license system is far *less* rigorous than the gun check system; you sure as heck don't have to have an NICS check to buy a car, and getting a license for one to drive in public is easy as pie.

[smoogatz]

14. Okay, walk me through it.

If you apply for ccw, you fill out a form that says you're not crazy and haven't committed certain kinds of crimes, right? Then somebody follows-up, allegedly, to verify that info. Then you have to take a class in which you learn to shoot and store your weapon safely. Right? Then they send you (or give you, on the spot), your ccw license, a copy of which is also kept on file. No? So the process is somewhat different than NICS alone.

The point is not to turn you into a ccw guy; it's to establish a rigorous screening process that might either weed out or deter the Chos of the world. I think if you apply for gun ownership, you should be required to open your medical records and show that you're not being treated for psychosis, among other things.

[spin]

22. Something needs to weed out

people with certain mental problems. I would have no problem allowing access to my medical records in order to obtain a permit to buy a weapon. Note: I own weapons and have a concealed carry permit.

Of course, I consider personal medical information as very private and important. I would want to be assured that adequate safeguards would be in place to eliminate any possibility that the information wouldn't be compromised and released to people such as employers or insurance companies.

How to gather this information might pose a problem. The authorities can access criminal records but have no ability to simply check psychologist or psychiatrists records for people who voluntarily seek help. The police in the recent slaying of the therapist in Manhattan were unable to access the records of her patients without a court order http://www.heraldonline.com/wire/nation/story/367973.html.

Many people and groups would object to forming a data base of those who have had treatment for various mental problems. I see this as a significant barrier to implementing a mental background check of a gun purchaser. Also, people with serious mental problems might be reluctant to seek treatment fearing their names might end up in some government data base.

But the idea has merit. Most of the incidents of mass murder have involved individuals who had plenty of red flags in their background. At the minimum it would make it harder for them to obtain weapons. Of course, they can always obtain weapons on the black market or simply steal them.

Guns don't really cause violence but violence does lead to more guns.

[L1A1Rocker]

23. The process varies from state to state as does the book work

Texas process:
* Request your application - firs round of checking by the stat is done here. They make sure the name being submitted is a state resident, SS # matches and so forth.
* You get your application packet. And I do mean packet. About one pound of paperwork arrives. There are numerous forms to fill out have notarized and a couple of finger print cards to be completed. Also included is a booklet covering they Texas laws on force and deadly force.
* Take your class from a certified state instructor. It is a two day affair covering the use of force and deadly force and non-violent dispute resolution. The class is completed with a written exam and an shooting proficiency test.
* now wait for the state to send you CHL. takes about 60 days



To go through this kind of procedure to excessive your right to simply OWN a firearm goes beyond reasonable.

[krispos42]

24. When I got mine, it was to bypass the 48-hour waiting period for handguns.

This guy had a .22 revolver that I wanted, but he was four hours away round trip. If I waited for the waiting period, I would have had to drive 8 hours total instead of 4.

This was in South Dakota, I filled out the form and showed my valid SD driver's license to the sheriff's office. I had to answer several questions under penalty of perjury, including felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic abuse convictions, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, etc. And that I was over 21. I also had to describe myself physically.

I signed it, and the sheriff's office told me to come back in 24 hours to see if I was approved or not.

I was approved and paid my $10 fee. The sheriff's office stamped and signed the carbon copy of my application, gave it to me, said this would be my temporary permit until the state send me my card, and wished me to carry safely.

I walked out a little dumbfounded. I was not photographed or fingerprinted or anything like that. I did not have to demonstrate proficiency or know about self-defense law.

I didn't even have to prove I can see! Being sighted is not a requirement for a concealed pistol permit in South Dakota!

A few weeks later, I got a card in the mail. It had my name, address, height, weight, and hair and eye color on it. No photograph, no signature.

Now I think this was a little loose. But South Dakota only has like 8 homicides a year, which is like one-fifth of the national average.

So I went up to the guy and filled out the federal ATF form. Then he called it in to the NICS (National Instant Check System) and read off the information on the form. In a few minutes it came back good, I showed him my CCW permit, paid in cash, and walked out.

Later on I bought several more guns and each time I had to go through the NICS check. I bought one pistol and two long guns. I used my CCW permit to buy the pistol, but did not need to for the long guns.


With a CCW permit, the extra effort is usually to make sure the person is competent in gun handling and knows the law and legal limits regarding deadly force. Typically use of deadly force is public is held to a higher standard than using it in your home.

In most states CCW permits are "shall-issue", where if you meet the legal requirements the issuing authority MUSt issue the permit. Some states are "may-issue", where even if you meet the legal requirements, it is still up to the issuing authority whether or not to give you one.

[Recursion]

38. Authorization cards need not have biometric data like pictures

It's only historical accident that our chief form of authentication is also an authorization (the drivers license). IMO that should be decoupled, too.

[gorfle]

25. It varies from place to place

In Georgia, I know you had to be fingerprinted in order to get a CCW permit. This is why I did not get one there - I disagree with fingerprinting law-abiding citizens.

In Alabama, they do not fingerprint. Nor is a test required. I pay $10, provide a photograph, and 3 references. They run a background check on you, but I don't think it is any more rigorous than a standard NICS check - I could be wrong.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. Because you are confusing two separate issues

The right to own firearms vs the privilege to carry in public on public streets.

The right to own firearms is a guaranteed right. The carrying of concealed handguns is a regulation on that right. See the difference?

[SteveM]

20. Good summation.

[gorfle]

26. Except it is the right to keep AND bear them...

The right to own firearms is a guaranteed right. The carrying of concealed handguns is a regulation on that right. See the difference?

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to both KEEP and to BEAR arms. I don't think by BEAR they meant you could only bear them around your house. So in my opinion, the 2nd Amendment already enumerates the right to bear arms in public, though whether this is concealed or open carry might be up to debate. Either way, this right has been pretty well infringed because in most places you cannot open carry (this is considered "brandishing") and there are extensive restrictions or outright prohibitions against concealed carry.

[gorfle]

16. My thoughts...

From the other thread...

Here are some of my hesitations for this requirement.:

Today, the NICS background check in effect provides federal registration of all new firearm purchases. Ostensibly, these records are supposed to be deleted every so often, and the amount of data collected on and reported about the individual is limited. Personally, I am skeptical. Once the government begins collecting information it has a propensity to hang onto it, either purposefully, or by the data just being copied and left in a directory somewhere by accident.

I am scared of government registration of firearm owners because it gives the government a shopping list of whose doors to go knocking on should confiscation ever be felt expedient.

At least today you can buy a used firearm from an individual with no records of the transaction. This means that people can buy firearms without ever showing up on the government's radar as being a firearm owner, and it provides a legitimate out for anyone who has ever bought new firearm as they can always claim they sold it to a private individual should the government come inquiring.

Another problem with CCW permits is that in some states they are very rigorous about it. In Georgia, for example, they required you to be fingerprinted before you could have one. I did not get a CCW permit when I lived there specifically because I was opposed to that - law abiding citizens should not be fingerprinted like criminals for exercising the right to bear arms.

Basically, CCW permit holders are probably dedicated shooting enthusiasts who are also dedicated to the responsibilities of personal self defense. Because of this level of dedication, they are willing to jump through more hoops and be held to a higher standard of safety, at the risk of loosing personal freedoms in the future, in order to carry a concealed weapon.

The bottom line is I am uncomfortable with any procedure that will basically require government permission before you can exercise your Constitutional right to bear arms. I would be equally uncomfortable with requiring government permission before one could publish articles as a journalist. It is a slippery slope that one gets on with the best of intentions but could be perverted into a means to turn a right into a privilege. We are already part-way there today - all new firearm purchases require government permission, via NICS. CCW permit holders go through an even more rigorous procedure.

I am content to have a rigorous, procedure for those who wish to carry a weapon in public. I'm sure very few firearms kept at home are used in crimes.

[smoogatz]

36. It's a thorny issue, for me.

On the one hand, I would defend the constitution's guarantees of individual liberty absolutely. I believe that encroaching authoritarianism in the U.S. is a much greater threat to our freedom as a nation and as individuals than any particular outside adversary. I despair at the disastrous erosion of the 1st and 4th amendments in my lifetime, in particular. I have a somewhat more conflicted relationship with the 2nd, the current reading of which by the gun lobby seems twisted beyond all recognition to me. The intent was clearly to protect the individual right to KBA because an armed populace was required to protect the nascent U.S. from invasion or incursion; was, in fact, seen as a better solution at the time than a standing army. Clearly we've gone a different direction, so RTKBA in its current form feels like a great anachronism—to me, anyway, and to a lot of folks who dislike and distrust the gun lobby and the violence visited on the nation by gun proliferation. I appreciate the impulse to jealously guard all individual liberties granted in the Bill of Rights (though it amazes me that many who would defend RTKBA with their lives have no problem with the government reading their email or limiting their speech); I also think we tolerate a hell of a lot of unnecessary bloodshed in this country so that a minority (40% of households, they say) can feel a false sense of security. One wants to err on the side of freedom, obviously, but at the same time I resent the degree to which we've become an armed society. Does that make sense?

[gorfle]

37. Yes, and I share your concerns.

The intent was clearly to protect the individual right to KBA because an armed populace was required to protect the nascent U.S. from invasion or incursion; was, in fact, seen as a better solution at the time than a standing army.

While the militias spoken of in the 2nd Amendment were in fact designed to protect the United States from invasion or incursion, it is my opinion, after reading many supporting documents such as the Federalist Papers (Federalist 29 in particular), that the militias were set up in a decentralized manner so as to prevent the federal government from having a military force with with to enact and enforce a tyranny. The militias were to defend against threats both from without and within - specifically to guard against tyranny.

The militias as set up during the founding of our nation ceased to exist in 1903, with the passing of the Dick Act. The Dick Act federalized the state militias and created the National Guard. The effect was to make the individual armed forces of the States become adjuncts to the Federal military forces - in effect, reserve troops. Thus the balance that the militias were supposed to bring to bear against the federal troops was lost.

This is the basis for my argument that even if the 2nd Amendment relegates the right to keep and bear arms only to militia members, since the militias that the framers intended to exist have been usurped by the federal government that right must default to the people who were to make up the militia anyway. (As an aside, the argument that only militia (National Guard) members can bear arms is false for another reason - the Dick Act made provisions for both the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militias - all able-bodied men from age 17-45).

This is a long-winded way of saying that the reason why we must possess arms is so that should the need to overthrow tyranny come again, we will have the means to do so.

It does suck that the criminal and insane among us can take advantage of the tools intended for the preservation of liberty and use them for the most heinous of acts. And we should strive, wherever possible to keep known criminals and insane people from getting their hands on such tools.

But, in my view, we can never use the chasing of safety as an excuse to deny ourselves the essential liberty of being armed. Thus whatever devices we come up with to disarm the criminal and insane among us must not overly restrict the rest of us. And if such means cannot be devised, then it is my view that we must live with the consequences of the few bad apples.

We should punish crime, so as to deter future crime. We should deny arms to those who have demonstrated themselves to be a threat in the past. This is, in my view, about the best that can be done.

[sabre73]

27. I was CCW in Texas before I moved....

And I was a CCW instructor. That being said, the average student in my classes was generally prepared to pay out $140.00 for the class and another $140.00 for the license plus what ever they had to spend on ammunition to do the qualification course. All said and done, they would spend well over $300.00 and would subject themselves to a background check on the LOCAL and Federal level. The background check is the same that some federal agencies use to screen potential recruits/ agents and the entire process can take anywhere from 4 to 6 months. Mine took 6 months and I am law enforcement.

Now if you applied the same criteria for buying a gun as you would for concealed carry then you would have to look at it like this. $300.00 is a lot of money for some people (most people) and not all could afford that type of cost so the end result would be only the wealthy can be afforded the right to bear arms.

So. If there were a way to lower the cost or perhaps even have Uncle Sam flip the bill then I could see a lot of people falling in line with the idea (granted that they were allowed to carry their guns concealed once all was said and done.

Good question.

[smoogatz]

34. Thanks for that reasoned and civil response.

Both increasingly rare commodities around here. I do feel that I've learned something from this discussion.

And welcome to DU, btw.

[Boomer 50]

31. 2nd Amendment is a right not a privledge

As long as a person is law abiding, you cannot have minimum standards to exercise a right. If SCOTUS declares that the 2nd Amendment truly does mean keep and BEAR arms, then licensing for CCW will be done away with.

Every person has the right to defend his or herself without exception. If a person is not trustworthy or competent enough to have access to a gun, why in the hell do we let these people out in society?

[sabre73]

32. Unfortunatly

we let "Those people" out in society because we have nowhere to "PUT" them. And that is for the criminal element or psychiatric cases.

But there is more to it than that, what about the people with autism, mental retardation, or any number of developmental conditions?

Should they be "put" somewhere? My guess is no. I agree that it is a right but unfortunately it is a right you have to be equipped to exercise.

[Boomer 50]

33. Mental patients are supposed to be under care.....

and if they are a danger, they should be supervised.

Going to your initial sentence, I agree. Our elected officials have made so many stupid things a crime that there is no place for real criminals. This is a major problem and one that no one seems to be willing to address. Do we really need to put someone in jail because they have a shotgun with a barrel that is 17.75 inches long instead of 18.1 inches? What is the purpose and legitimacy of this law? Instead of creating criminals, why not save tax payer money, repeal a lot of the BS laws and go after the REAL criminals who have done harm to other people? Our court system is so overwhelmed with crap cases by law enforcement who have to uphold bullshit laws that people are dropping the ball on REAL issues. At VA Tech, Cho should have been flagged under NICS. He wasn't. Why?

Our nation is committing political suicide due to elected officials feeling the "need" to pass laws usually making something else that is trivial beyond comprehension illegal.

[smoogatz]

35. It's a matter of degree, no?

A mentally ill person in crisis represents a different level of danger to society if he's armed with a claw-hammer or a steak knife than he would armed with a Bushmaster or a Glock 9mm (or three). We can't just lock up the 10% of the country who've experienced serious mental illness but haven't committed a crime; but maybe it's possible to make it harder for them to acquire firearms. Maybe it's irresponsible not to.

[Boomer 50]

39. Then we are treading where we dare not

While in the perfect worlds, we could stop all crime but alas, we can't. By pre-emptively barring citizens from the right to own arms, are we then treading on other civil rights as well? Where does it end?

This is a very dangerous path to go down and we should avoid it at all costs.

Also, if someone wants a gun, they WILL get it. Making more restrictive gun laws won't change that, the only result that will occur is to make it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to a firearm when it is truly needed.

I lost a very close friend due to the mandatory waiting period that was instituted in the early 90's. She was being stalked and had to wait to get a handgun. Her stalker had no such restrictions, he had stolen his gun.

[Tejas]

41. just a small note

Don't normally see people stricken with the types of things you mentioned out buying guns. The ones I have met are really nice people too.

Just saying......

[Tejas]

40. Fair question

My answer to your question is that only a small percentage of HANDgun-buyers plan to carry that handgun, the rest of us should stay exempt. Of course, you didn't specify long-gun buyers being included so we'll leave that alone.

Now, for you. Would you mind renewing your Driver's License by physically taking the driving part every four years?

How about every time you purchase a vehicle?

How often would be too often?