Concealed Carry & Open Carry Licensing Is Unfit To Exist

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Currently, almost all states in the U.S. are “shall issue”, and almost all of them allow concealed carry. It wasn’t always this way! In 1986, only eight states had a “shall issue” concealed carry policy. In the 90s, it was an often debated issue, and there were a lot more states than there are today that said “no” to concealed carry altogether. In 1995, Texas adopted concealed carry as “shall issue” when it was completely illegal before 1995. The laws are changing, and today, seeing five states with constitutional carry, it seems to be the direction that legislation is going in. Residents of those states, I’m sure, would tell you that concealed carry & open carry licensing is unfit to exist.



Licensing doesn’t actually do anything. It’s just a permission slip by the state, and one that isn’t free. What, prior to the licensing, they were a madman that wanted to shoot up every school and post office in the country, but after the licensing, they’re an upstanding citizen? What is the argument in favor of licensing that convinces people of its requirement being a necessity? The boogeyman? If licensing is so magical, you would think that the group that issues it — the state — would be able to guarantee that its own workers (cops) were competent with firearms. A large number of cops have a very poor understanding of firearms, firearm safety, how to aim, and trigger discipline. If there was an issuer of something, and that something acted like a seal of approval, and that group couldn’t even make sure its own workers met that approval, would you do business with them?



Licensing isn’t cheap, if you weren’t aware, and especially if you’re poor. Democrats who feel that this permission slip is a necessity, or there will be shootouts everywhere, tend to be the same people that always complain about the poor needing help. Okay, well, help them! This discriminates against a poor individual’s right of self defense, and merely because they are poor. It’s expensive! The class that’s required can be anywhere from $100 to $150, and then all of the state fees can drive it up to well over $300! I don’t know about you, but it’s not a common thing for me to hear poor people talking about how they have an extra $300 sitting around somewhere. They need to purchase the firearm, and if that isn’t already expensive enough for them, then they need to shell out this obscene fee to the state. Do the poor not have the same rights as everyone else? Should they really be discriminated against?

cc2

Involuntary permits and licenses go against everything that private property advocates stand for. It’s not the state’s property, what right do they have to regulate when your property can be carried? If you purchase something, then it’s yours: your body is also yours, so what issue is there with you carrying something on your person? Does the state own your body? Does the state own your clothing? Does the state own your firearm? What right do they have? It is inconsistent to be in favor of property rights, gun rights, and to be in favor of involuntary permits and licensing. There’s not a single libertarian view that is consistent with the state issuing these things.

Criminals Beware: people who bowed down to a bigger group of criminals are welcome here!
Criminals Beware: people who bowed down to a bigger group of criminals are welcome here!
It’s funny, even constitutionalists will sometimes support licensing as a requirement. Last time I looked at the Second Amendment, it didn’t say: to keep and bear arms, but to bear arms only if the state gives you a permission slip to do so. A real solution to carrying firearms is constitutional carry. Unlike CHLs (or CCWs), constitutional carry recognizes that it’s the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The fact that there are different takes on licensing per state, such as “shall issue” or “may issue” proves that the whole system rests on the notion that the state has a rightful say in the matter, which it does not! Licensing only harms the poor, and permits the state to discriminate against those who can and cannot defend themselves. Concealed carry and open carry licensing is unfit to exist!

https://libertariangaming.org/?p=749

[internet troll]

If things keep going the way they are with Peruta in California, we may see California go grom yellow to green sooner than later.

[freesoul]

its an affront to our liberty that we have to be "licensed" to bear arms.

It hasn't kept anyone safe, ever.

[rckeystone]

If things keep going the way they are with Peruta in California, we may see California go from yellow to green sooner than later.

Let's hope so.

its an affront to our liberty that we have to be "licensed" to bear arms.

It hasn't kept anyone safe, ever.

Agreed on both points.

[Sparks]

We're surrounded. Don't give up.

[marinville]

At the risk of going off on a tangent: IMO as long as the character clause exists, PA is truly may issue. They can call it shall issue all they want (just like they call the handgun registry an incomplete sales database) but personally, I'm not buying it.

If you can have a clean record and still be denied by the decision of one man, that is not shall issue.

[knight0334]

At the risk of going off on a tangent: IMO as long as the character clause exists, PA is truly may issue. They can call it shall issue all they want (just like they call the handgun registry an incomplete sales database) but personally, I'm not buying it.

If you can have a clean record and still be denied by the decision of one man, that is not shall issue.

And that one man's decision must also be substantiated. His decision can be challenged, and if there is no basis for the denial a judge is supposed to rule for the challenger.

The character clause has little to no bearing in the overall scope of things.

But please, feel free to count how many people were denied on the character clause and didn't win when they challenged it because the denial was based on unsubstantiated claims.

And not to mention - PA is just short of 1000000 licensees. More than every other state except Florida. ....That character clause really is a problem(sarcasm).

[SevenMilePete]

At the risk of going off on a tangent: IMO as long as the character clause exists, PA is truly may issue. They can call it shall issue all they want (just like they call the handgun registry an incomplete sales database) but personally, I'm not buying it.

If you can have a clean record and still be denied by the decision of one man, that is not shall issue.

It must be isolated to specific counties in the state. I haven't heard of anyone being denied in Erie County, because of "character". I don't think they even check references. Before the Newtown crunch, you could submit your application, get your picture taken, and walk out with your permit inless than an hour.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

And that one man's decision must also be substantiated. His decision can be challenged, and if there is no basis for the denial a judge is supposed to rule for the challenger.

The character clause has little to no bearing in the overall scope of things.

But please, feel free to count how many people were denied on the character clause and didn't win when they challenged it because the denial was based on unsubstantiated claims.

And not to mention - PA is just short of 1000000 licensees. More than every other state except Florida. ....That character clause really is a problem(sarcasm).

Although I understand you're point - I think that we must accept that self defense & defense of ones community & loves ones is sacrosanct. If a human being should never be denied arms & be allowed in the community. A person to dangerous to be trusted with them is a person to dangerous to be released.

[knight0334]

Although I understand you're point - I think that we must accept that self defense & defense of ones community & loves ones is sacrosanct. If a human being should never be denied arms & be allowed in the community. A person to dangerous to be trusted with them is a person to dangerous to be released.

Only in Philly or during a SoE would the denial of a LTCF be offensive to such.

A person can still carry openly.

Folks should be more offended at PA 6108 and 6106(a)'s vehicle clause than the character clause.

There are plenty of undocumented mentally defective people and non-convicts that absolutely shouldn't be carrying a gun because that do have a potential to cause harm to others or themselves - which the character clause has a purpose for. Every village has their idiot that isn't in the system..