Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Quote Of The Day

"a CCW is an infringement on a preexisting right. You would be raising holy hell if you required a permit to speak up against your government. "Sorry, you don't have a STL (speedy trial license) so you'll have to wait 90 days before a judge can listen to your case". "We're sorry Mr. Smith, without a Self Incrimination Permit, you have no 5th amendment protections"

- Robb Allen

With all the talk of training over at SFL's blog (which has now, sadly but predictably, gone *poof*) I thought this would be an appropriate QOTD, even though Robb penned it roughly 7 months ago.

The sad thing about the "discussion" (I have a hard time calling it discussion given SFL & Rob's behavior) is that none of us pro-gun folks actually disagree that training is a good idea, or that carrying a non-drop safe gun sans holster is a bad idea. The disagreement comes when some condescending blowhard trots out every anti-gun talking point in the book and claims that her fellow Americans should not exercise their rights without meeting her nearly unattainable, pie-in-the-sky standard of "adequate training."

Robb is correct. SFL and other anti-gunners would have a fit if every few years they had to provide justification, pay a fee, pass a qualification, pay for and attend a "training class," and then wait months in order to write a blog post, petition their local government, or assert their right to legal counsel. If they were unable to freely, legally exercise those rights without 1st obtaining permits they would scream bloody murder, particularly if they happened to be in a state where everyone is summarily denied permits. (see MD)

I wonder if SFL also thinks that one should have "combat experience" in the courtroom (an impossible standard for a non-trial lawyer) and extensive legal training in order to assert their right to a speedy trial, take the stand in their own defense, or invoke their their right against self-incrimination.

Anti-gunners are almost exclusively unwilling to apply the same standards they wish to inflict upon us and our 2nd Amendment rights to those rights they actually approve of.


Weer'd Beard said...

I dunno, a written competency test to register to vote where you are quizzed on local and federal laws, voting roll-calls for incumbents, basic civics and how about this one. "Write 'One Billion' In standard Arabic Numerals."

Maybe when dropping all the zeros one needs to write:
1,000,000,000 people might have a better idea how much our government is fucking with us.

If we do that I'm fine with training requirements and bullshit permits.

All we'd need is to guff up for a few years, and I suspect the government will look a lot friendlier to us all.

And we can petition our liberty-minded government to lift all of our bullshit restrictions.


On a serious note, all these permits and training are wonderful, if they actually DO anything. When you get down to brass tacks, places like Alaska and Vermont with no permit system are not very different than states like New Hampshire and Pensylvania that have permits but no training required, vs. places like Maine and Florida that have permits AND require training, but are shall-issue, vs. places like Maryland and California that require training and permits, and are under no obligation to issue you the permit. Vs. Massachusetts that requires training and a permit just to OWN a gun, and they're under no obligation to issue it to you, or Illinois that requires a permit to own a gun, but won't let you carry it in any way.

All of these states have a similar per-capita gun accident rate. (very low, sub 1%) and have a similar rate of otherwise lawful citizens committing crimes with guns (again sub 1%)

Furthermore there are only a few rare instances when a Police officer would ask to SEE your permit, and frankly I fail to see how that would have any relevance, since you are either committing a crime or you are just being verified for permission from the state.

And of course lastly there is no one permit that allows you to carry in all 50 States, so you can be safe and OK in one state, but a criminal in the next.

It's a do-nothing feel-good law that people support ONLY because it's always been that way.

Kevin said...

Weer'd, there's a HUGE difference between Alaska/Vermont and Shall-issue. Shall-issue places a TAX and an EXPIRATION DATE on a RIGHT. The supreme court found it unconstitutional to levy fees on things freely given in the Bill of Rights, where I do believe the 2nd Amendment is written.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I don't mean any offense.

Weer'd Beard said...

Nope, I'm actually 100% with you. And your statements are probably warranted as my comment certainly wasn't clear. I have family in Vermont and I spend a bit of time there, so my statement was that there is no safety or abuse issues that are evident in Vermont and Alaska that aren't seen in places like Massachusetts or California (or Illinois), so I see it as an ineffective law on the regulatory level.

Also I see no point in differentiating open vs. concealed carry...or even firearms carry vs. any other defensive weapon or deterrent.

So I'm 100% behind Vermont-style gun laws in general (Alaska doesn't get huge praise from me because while they allow carry without question, and will issue permits freely without administrative tax or question for out-of-state carry, they do restrict their citizens on where they CAN carry, such as places that serve alcohol).

Still politically, I don't know if that's our starting point. This nation has been essentially a place of permitted carry for as long as most of us have been alive.

So just like converting anti-gun people the first thing you do is get them to the range to let them know guns should be respected, but not FEARED, and that they are not only easy to use safely, but easy to use effectively, for carry laws I think what we need to work on is expanding the majority laws first to places that don't allow them. So nation-wide permitless open carry, and nation-wide permitted conceal carry I see as an easily achievable peak of the slippery slope.

But that is in no way my end-game, where our right to keep AND BEAR arms is expressly protected.

Heller and McDonald will clarify the "Keep" part quite well, but many places still are iffy on the "Bear" part.

I don't think the nation is ready for nation-wide Vermont laws, but once all US citizens are free to keep and bear arms (with an onerous right-tax...and no incident) we will have the firm footing to attack the constitutionality of that taxation of our rights.

Could be that "For Life" CCW cards (like Indiana) might be the next step.

But we are in the midst of a journey of 1,000 miles. We got to this place because of the sins of our fathers, and we need to come to terms with that, but we're in a position to keep taking steps.

I wish it didn't work that way, but it does, we didn't loose our rights overnight, but step by step losses that started nearly a century or more ago.

Cavalier said...

This will probably get me flamed, but I'll say it anyway.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it mention carrying concealed firearms in public. The phrase "keep and bear arms" is vague, so different states have different rules on it.

The Bill of Rights specifies "free speech," but does that mean radio stations shouldn't be regulated? Let anyone broadcast on any frequency with any signal strength in any area?

I don't like the bother or bureaucracy of getting a permit, but I don't find it a terrible burden either. Massad Ayoob put it best (paraphrasing): in your home and on your property do what you want, but when someone could endanger me and my loved ones I'd rather know they were trained before strapping on a gun.

Bob S. said...


It is a huge burden here in Texas to get a Concealed Handgun Permit because that is the ONLY way I can carry in public.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is considerably infringed when I can not openly carry for any reason (minor exception of on my own property, etc).

If Open Carry was the default accepted practice, I could maybe support licensing concealed carry.

But in order to Bear Arms now - I have to get photographs -$8, get fingerprints -$10, get a background check, take a class 8 to 10 hours and average costs -$100, submit the results of a proficiency test --how is that not infringing-- and pay - $70 in my case because I was a vet.

The state graciously allows those making poverty level wages to only pay $70 to exercise their rights. Judges, prosecutors, and a few others might not have to pay at all. Military Veterans also get a discount.

So for only the inconvenience of 10 hours and nearly $200, I get a card saying it's okay for me to exercise a right that shouldn't infringed.

I'm having a series of posts on my blog about training right now. I know Mike W. won't mind me pimping my site. Please stop in and let me know your thoughts on training.

Mike W. said...

The phrase "keep and bear arms" is vague, so different states have different rules on it.

What's vague about it? both "keep" and "bear" have specific meanings in the english language.

"Bear" means to carry on ones person.

If I have to pay a fee, take a class and ask the government for PERMISSION before I may bear arms then I am not exercising a right.

The moment I had to ask for permission and be granted a permit it ceased to be a "right."