CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction?

[terryg]

First of all, thank you all for your responses. The vast majority of you respected my desire for reasoned debate only and I really appreciate it. I am still pinning down my thoughts and feelings on the many subtlety's of this topic. To those asserting that this has been covered before, I again apologize. I found bits of pieces of these discussions in other threads. But searched and could not find a thread dedicated to this topic from this angle.

To TDM:

But because we (as LAC's) were all required to essentially prove our status as a non-criminal before hand, the officer is able to quickly verify, by checking for 'plastic' whether the suspected person is indeed carrying illegally. Is that trade off worth it?

Criminals are defined by their actions, and I hold the opinion that the mere possession of a firearm does not constitute a criminal act, and the criminalization of firearm possession is indeed a violation of our rights afforded by the constitution. A CHL does nothing to confirm or deny the identity of a potential criminal that can not be accomplished by any other form of legal identification.

The criminal I was referring to was the convicted felon - not someone with a clean record who is carrying without a CHL.

To srothstein: Lets go in reverse:

The gun is not a danger to anyone if the person obeys the laws on how to use it. If he won't obey those laws, why would anyone think he would obey the laws restricting his carrying the weapon?

Agreed. Several posters have pointed this out, but i am puzzled as to why. I haven't suggested an anything along those lines. Criminals will be criminals. My primary question was relating to whether or not the CHL process serves as a tool to law enforcement to aid in finding those with records who might be carrying. Then if there were other benefits of the CHL process and to compare the sum of any benefits gained against the liberties forfeited.

Your question poses a false dichotomy. The correct question is to note that the requirement for a CHL is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms but to ask if it is a reasonable violation?

That seems like semantics to me - whether the CHL process is a "reasonable violation" or a "reasonable restriction". I did make some assumptions in posting my original question. Lets set aside the CHL question for a moment and look just at most common restrictions applied to gun ownership. There are two primary areas, as I see it, in which the 'keeping' portion of the 2A infringed:

1. Restricting certain people from ownership. I believe the most common groups restricted by federal and state laws are those with felony convictions and those with certain mental illness diagnoses.
2. Restricting certain types of weapons. Fully automatic weapons, explosives, WMDs, etc.

So my assumptions were that a fair number of people on this board would agree that some restrictions in those categories (not all, but some) are reasonable. I assumed wrong.

---

To all 'no line' proponents:

I haven't received a whole lot of feedback on the first item above (felons and the mentally ill). I would presume most people on this forum agree, at least in part, with those restrictions. But there are a few posts that make me wonder if that is not so.

I tried to present an extreme example of the number 2 category. I thought of a nuke, but didn't use it because it would seem to have little value as a SD weapon as the person firing would also be vaporized. So I created a fictional weapon. I expected there would be a few people who disagree with restrictions in that category. It seems there are a lot more people here who disagree with that than I anticipated.

I don't really know how to respond to that. I understand that once a line is drawn, it can get moved in either direction. I get that. However, I do not believe that rights of my neighbor to keep and bear and nuclear device outweighs the need for protecting the lives of the population of entire cities. I'm sorry if that is not a popular opinion here. I don't care that 'only a criminal' would chose to use the WMD so its ok for the LAC to own one. No, not a weapon that kind of destructive power and that has no real use in SD. I know the scenario is absurd to begin with - but thats the point, can you draw the line at the extreme? And, in spite of the risk of that line moving further north or south, I think the state acting on the consent of the governed has a responsibility to control weapons that powerful. Now what about full-auto, grenades and the like? I don't know - I don't know where I would draw that line.

But, I appreciate those who do feel that there should be 'no line'. I understand your arguments and that the line would constantly move. So that's it. If you argued for 'no line', then you have made your case as the rest of my questions were about degrees of 'reasonable restrictions'.

My only counter claim would be that we all, every one of us, willingly trade freedom for security every day. It's always a question of how much? Whether you think we should have to be licensed to drive or not, we all drive on the right side of the road. Why? Because the law dictates that is where we should drive to maintain order AND because it would be dangerous not to.

But lets look at something more in line with the 2A. Lets look at the 4A. We are guaranteed the protection from searches without warrants by the fourth amendment. But the courts have upheld some restrictions to those rights. Let me state now that I don't agree with all of them or the implementation of all of them. But lets look at the 'exigent circumstances' loophole. We all decry the obvious abuse of this clause in this thread. But then also decry the fact that it was not used in this thread. And rightfully so in both cases. I can guarantee that any one of us would want an exigent circumstance driven search of a home if the police had reason to believe that a BG had kidnapped our own family member to that location - EVERY ONE. That is a freedom we are willing to trade for security under the right circumstances.

No matter what, it all comes down to where each of us would draw the lines compared to society as a whole would choose to draw the lines.

-------

However, I am happy to report that jimlongley did help me by countering the argument I presented.

No, it does not, because the only time a LEO might know that a criminal was not carrying is by frisking the criminal, not by whether they have a CHL or not, and since CHL is not universal among the law abiding, just assuming that only CHL have proved they are LACs, disenfranchises all of those other LACs who do not have CHLs.

Of course the "sharp cop" you exemplify sounds a little like a violation of my rights under a different amendment, that is, innocent until proven guilty. If that cop has caught someone doing a criminal act, then that someone probably should not have a gun, of any kind, whether or not they have a CHL, and enough CHLs have been arrested and disarmed to prove that point, even if they were not convicted.

He directly countered my primary question and he is right. The sharp cop may notice the bulge - but he cannot verify what it is without confronting and asking for ID. At the request of ID, the LAC will present the CHL and all is (hopefully) good. The convicted criminal, on the other hand, will simply lie if asked. At that point, the only way to verify is with a pat down which shouldn't be allowed unless some other activity is observed.

So this shoots down my theory of the CHL process as an effective law enforcement tool.

Thank you Jim!!

[terryg]

Now, sorry for the back to back long posts. As the realization came to me that there is little law enforcement value in the CHL process, I still could put my finger on what 'seems' right about the process. I questioned myself then as to why I still 'like' the CHL process. Its not the training received because, while useful, is certainly not what we should be getting for 10 hours

Then it hit me - I like it because I like intentional gun ownership. I mentioned this in another thread when I was decrying those who leave guns unsecured around children. I am not a fan of casual gun ownership. Any non-felon (or those mentally ill) can keep arms, at least in Texas and most areas. But by requiring a process to enable the bearing of arms, it forces those who chose to carry to be intentional about it.

I know criminals will still carry, so please don't post that again. Its not about crime.

But perhaps the CHL process reduces the possibility of carelessness. You get exposed to the laws regarding carrying and concealment. You make a commitment to the carrying lifestyle. You are, hopefully, less likely to try to put your friends weapon in the waist of your pants and hope it stays put.

Anybody care to offer any thoughts on this angle? Now I know that the 'no line' folks will still take issue with this. I understand it is still an infringement to a certain degree. I still argue that we all willingly trade a small measure trade freedom for security everyday.

In any event, I would again like to offer my appreciation to those who have offered challenges to these questions. Even if I disagree with some, I am refining my thoughts on this issue with each comment.

t

[jimlongley]

Now, sorry for the back to back long posts. As the realization came to me that there is little law enforcement value in the CHL process, I still could put my finger on what 'seems' right about the process. I questioned myself then as to why I still 'like' the CHL process. Its not the training received because, while useful, is certainly not what we should be getting for 10 hours

Then it hit me - I like it because I like intentional gun ownership. I mentioned this in another thread when I was decrying those who leave guns unsecured around children. I am not a fan of casual gun ownership. Any non-felon (or those mentally ill) can keep arms, at least in Texas and most areas. But by requiring a process to enable the bearing of arms, it forces those who chose to carry to be intentional about it.

I know criminals will still carry, so please don't post that again. Its not about crime.

But perhaps the CHL process reduces the possibility of carelessness. You get exposed to the laws regarding carrying and concealment. You make a commitment to the carrying lifestyle. You are, hopefully, less likely to try to put your friends weapon in the waist of your pants and hope it stays put.

Anybody care to offer any thoughts on this angle? Now I know that the 'no line' folks will still take issue with this. I understand it is still an infringement to a certain degree. I still argue that we all willingly trade a small measure trade freedom for security everyday.

In any event, I would again like to offer my appreciation to those who have offered challenges to these questions. Even if I disagree with some, I am refining my thoughts on this issue with each comment.

t

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's take for granted that CHL holders are less careless than the general LAC population, leaving out criminals entirely.

So, still, the number of LACs that choose not to get CHLs for ANY reason is a subset of gun owners in general (still LACs) is a pretty significant number. These are people who might carry if they didn't have to have a CHL, people who see it as infringement, people who can't or don't want to afford the $300 dollar investment, people who can't get to a class (try finding one in Borden County) etc.

The MPA fixes this to some extent, but there are still LACs who do not have CHLs who might carry, given the chance, under certain circumstances, and to me requiring CHL just because it might make gun ownership more "intentional" and may reduce carelessness by some undefinable amount, still represents an intrusion and infringement, at least partly because it is, once again, an attempt at legislating common sense, an act that has proved to be totally impossible throughout history.

So if we want to back off from VT style carry, ie any LAC who wants to may carry open or concealed, how about AK style, where any LAC may carry, but if they choose they may go to the effort and expense of obtaining a CHL, which grants them the privilege of making firearm purchases without having to do a background check, and the ability to purchase and carry in other states. This does not infringe, very much (more later) on the right to keep and bear, at least in the LAC's home state. So the LAC has the right to carry, and the option to obtain a license that grants privileges above the right.

Of course, (the more later) I expect that the next increment in moving the lines away from where they are now, the next step after Heller and McDonald, could possibly be something on the order of, for the lack of a better thing to call it, Longley v Chicago/Daley/Cook County or Longley v NY Port Authority/NY City/Bloomberg because I want to take my legally owned and legal to carry in a whole bunch of other states, carry gun with me while visiting my stepdaughter in Aurora IL, or my daughter in Westchester County.

My, obvious by now I would assume, ultimate goal is to move the lines back to where they were in the 1870s or so, when Teddy Roosevelt carried his guns in Boston and everywhere else (and he was just a kid) instead of this state by state patchwork that we have now. And the only way to accomplish this, IMNSHO, is not to take rights away from Vermonters, but to reaffirm them for everybody else.

[megs]

Where do we draw the line? That reminds me of a story.

A man and a woman were talking at a party. He asked if she would spend the night with him for ten million dollars, hypothetically speaking. She said yes. He then asked if she would spend the night with him for ten dollars, and she was offended. She asked what kind of woman he thought she was, and he replied they had already established that. Now they were just haggling about the price.

[terryg]

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's take for granted that CHL holders are less careless than the general LAC population, leaving out criminals entirely.

So, still, the number of LACs that choose not to get CHLs for ANY reason is a subset of gun owners in general (still LACs) is a pretty significant number. These are people who might carry if they didn't have to have a CHL, people who see it as infringement, people who can't or don't want to afford the $300 dollar investment, people who can't get to a class (try finding one in Borden County) etc.

The MPA fixes this to some extent, but there are still LACs who do not have CHLs who might carry, given the chance, under certain circumstances, and to me requiring CHL just because it might make gun ownership more "intentional" and may reduce carelessness by some undefinable amount, still represents an intrusion and infringement, at least partly because it is, once again, an attempt at legislating common sense, an act that has proved to be totally impossible throughout history.

So if we want to back off from VT style carry, ie any LAC who wants to may carry open or concealed, how about AK style, where any LAC may carry, but if they choose they may go to the effort and expense of obtaining a CHL, which grants them the privilege of making firearm purchases without having to do a background check, and the ability to purchase and carry in other states. This does not infringe, very much (more later) on the right to keep and bear, at least in the LAC's home state. So the LAC has the right to carry, and the option to obtain a license that grants privileges above the right.

Of course, (the more later) I expect that the next increment in moving the lines away from where they are now, the next step after Heller and McDonald, could possibly be something on the order of, for the lack of a better thing to call it, Longley v Chicago/Daley/Cook County or Longley v NY Port Authority/NY City/Bloomberg because I want to take my legally owned and legal to carry in a whole bunch of other states, carry gun with me while visiting my stepdaughter in Aurora IL, or my daughter in Westchester County.

My, obvious by now I would assume, ultimate goal is to move the lines back to where they were in the 1870s or so, when Teddy Roosevelt carried his guns in Boston and everywhere else (and he was just a kid) instead of this state by state patchwork that we have now. And the only way to accomplish this, IMNSHO, is not to take rights away from Vermonters, but to reaffirm them for everybody else.

Jim - very solid - thank you for taking the time to rebuttal. I can't fault your reasoning in anyway which means I will have to continue to examine my thinking on the matter.

Too bad there is no real way to track ND's/AD's from concealed carry in CHL states vs. non-CHL states. I suspect however, as you imply, that it would indeed be a fairly small difference.

I will probably always still prefer intentional gun ownership - I've seen too many people with very poor handling skills. But you have pretty clearly argued that any potential benefits obtained in this area from the CHL process are offset by fairly significant burdens on otherwise LAC.

Thank you again.

[terryg]

Where do we draw the line? That reminds me of a story.

A man and a woman were talking at a party. He asked if she would spend the night with him for ten million dollars, hypothetically speaking. She said yes. He then asked if she would spend the night with him for ten dollars, and she was offended. She asked what kind of woman he thought she was, and he replied they had already established that. Now they were just haggling about the price.

Yes, a cute story - I have heard it before and it makes a good point. But unless you can dispute my assertions from earlier, then we are all 'that kind of woman'.

But, I appreciate those who do feel that there should be 'no line'. I understand your arguments and that the line would constantly move. So that's it. If you argued for 'no line', then you have made your case as the rest of my questions were about degrees of 'reasonable restrictions'.

My only counter claim would be that we all, every one of us, willingly trade freedom for security every day. It's always a question of how much? Whether you think we should have to be licensed to drive or not, we all drive on the right side of the road. Why? Because the law dictates that is where we should drive to maintain order AND because it would be dangerous not to.

But lets look at something more in line with the 2A. Lets look at the 4A. We are guaranteed the protection from searches without warrants by the fourth amendment. But the courts have upheld some restrictions to those rights. Let me state now that I don't agree with all of them or the implementation of all of them. But lets look at the 'exigent circumstances' loophole. We all decry the obvious abuse of this clause in this thread. But then also decry the fact that it was not used in this thread. And rightfully so in both cases. I can guarantee that any one of us would want an exigent circumstance driven search of a home if the police had reason to believe that a BG had kidnapped our own family member to that location - EVERY ONE. That is a freedom we are willing to trade for security under the right circumstances.

No matter what, it all comes down to where each of us would draw the lines compared to society as a whole would choose to draw the lines.

[jimlongley]

I will probably always still prefer intentional gun ownership - I've seen too many people with very poor handling skills. But you have pretty clearly argued that any potential benefits obtained in this area from the CHL process are offset by fairly significant burdens on otherwise LAC.

Thank you again.

I also have a quibble with "intentional" gun ownership based on CHL status. While not a CHL instructor, and with not much intention of ever being one, I have been an NRA marksmanship instructor in handgun and rifle for decades and have been a range safety officer in several disciplines, including IDPA, and I have seen lots of people that I would classify as "intentional" gun owners do some incredibly stupid things.

I was taught shooting, and firearms safety, at my grandfather's behest, at a very young age. Maybe he recognized my nature early on, none of my younger brothers received the intensive training I did, or the freedom to have guns in the house - and I am the only one who has never even been arrested, much less convicted, and didn't finish college, and retired early, etc . . .

I bought my first rifle, off the wall at the gas station/general store, at the age of twelve, with money I earned and saved for that purpose myself, so I would define myself as an "intentional" gun owner, as opposed to people I have known who inherited guns, or were gifted with them, or people who just bought one for hunting and only used it once a year.

I have even known a few CHL holders who only did it "for the fun" or to be able to make purchases without a background check, and had no intention to ever carry, so I really see the "intentional" gun ownership issue as a null factor too.

My grandmother taught me that "The Admiral's lady, and Molly O'Grady, are sisters under the skin." As the wife of a Brigadier General, I guess she would have known, one way or the other.

[terryg]

I also have a quibble with "intentional" gun ownership based on CHL status. While not a CHL instructor, and with not much intention of ever being one, I have been an NRA marksmanship instructor in handgun and rifle for decades and have been a range safety officer in several disciplines, including IDPA, and I have seen lots of people that I would classify as "intentional" gun owners do some incredibly stupid things.

I was taught shooting, and firearms safety, at my grandfather's behest, at a very young age. Maybe he recognized my nature early on, none of my younger brothers received the intensive training I did, or the freedom to have guns in the house - and I am the only one who has never even been arrested, much less convicted, and didn't finish college, and retired early, etc . . .

I bought my first rifle, off the wall at the gas station/general store, at the age of twelve, with money I earned and saved for that purpose myself, so I would define myself as an "intentional" gun owner, as opposed to people I have known who inherited guns, or were gifted with them, or people who just bought one for hunting and only used it once a year.

I have even known a few CHL holders who only did it "for the fun" or to be able to make purchases without a background check, and had no intention to ever carry, so I really see the "intentional" gun ownership issue as a null factor too.

My grandmother taught me that "The Admiral's lady, and Molly O'Grady, are sisters under the skin." As the wife of a Brigadier General, I guess she would have known, one way or the other.

I inherited my first guns - or pre-inherited them anyway. My Mom and Dad were starting their retirement - RV style. He kept a Ruger 44 Mag and few other pieces but had me hold on to his Llama .45 1911 and a pre 1971 Ruger Standard. I had fired both of these as a kid. I was thrilled to have them. We had just moved back from Hawaii where I had lived for several years after being discharged. So of course, I had no gun rights while there.

But I had young children at home and the time and no safe way to store them - and not a lot of spare money. So for years, they stayed unloaded and locked with trigger lock. I took them to the range to shoot occasionally, but they stayed key locked and unloaded and so would do me no good in a SD situation. I finally bought a quick-access push button safe and began to store them loaded for home protection.

So I guess I know that CHL process does not equal intentional. I inherited my first guns but have been very intentional about how I care for them. But I think it generally will hold true that those who invest the time and money to push through the CHL process will be a better educated gun owner. Not necessarily because of what the class teaches you, but because you have to have a certain amount of commitment to follow through with it.

But you did make a pretty sound case about the degree of infringement caused by the CHL process. So for the moment, I remain somewhat conflicted.

-----

Funny story, or not. My Dad, who was my step-father from age 5, got the Ruger from my birth father. They were generally cordial, so it was no big deal when he came over late one night and rang the doorbell. He told my step-dad "I have something I want to give you" and pulled the ruger out from the back of his pants. For a moment, my step-dad was pretty sure he was going to get shot right there. But then he handed him the gun to keep.

[jimlongley]

Funny story, or not. My Dad, who was my step-father from age 5, got the Ruger from my birth father. They were generally cordial, so it was no big deal when he came over late one night and rang the doorbell. He told my step-dad "I have something I want to give you" and pulled the ruger out from the back of his pants. For a moment, my step-dad was pretty sure he was going to get shot right there. But then he handed him the gun to keep.

My late wife's first husband showed up at our door, unannounced and drunk (why he was an ex, among other things) late one night, and I just happened to be in the kitchen cleaning some guns. I met him, in consideration of the hour and not knowing who was mashing the doorbell over and over, with an unloaded and field stripped '03-A3 in my hand, and he screamed like a little girl and departed.

The next day he called my wife and raised a big stink about bringing up the kids in such a dangerous environment. When she told him it was OK, we had all been to the range to train them in the proper use of firearms he was almost apoplectic. He threatened to withhold his child support payments, which was no big deal because he hadn't been paying them anyway.

---

My second wife and I were at Big Town gun show when her ex called - he always called on my cell phone and just "ordered" me to let him speak to her - it was usually some gripe about not letting him see his kid (of course we were in TX, he in Albany NY, he was welcome to visit or send plane fare whenever he wanted) - and this was no different: "Let me speak to Paris" to which I answered, "Gee. I'm sorry Chuck, we are at a gun show and she is over on the other side buying a pistol right now."

The line became as quiet as I have ever heard one since my days as a Technical Support Engineer for the phone company.

[terryg]

Wow Jim, thanks for sharing. It's funny to hear about peoples reactions when they find out that someone is 'into' guns.

[Elza]

All rights have limits and carry responsibilities. You can’t yell “FIRE” in a theatre unless there really is a fire. You have to be registered to vote. All well and good except for one thing: I don’t have to spend my time or money to accomplish it. Once I’m registered I don’t have to do it again unless I change my address and then it is just a matter of sending in a post card.

I have no objection to taking a test and showing proficiency with a firearm. This protects me and mine as well. However it should be made available at reasonable times, I shouldn’t have to do but one time, and it should not cost me anything.

“Well, gee what about drivers licenses?” This is a state granted privilege not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m not charged money to exercise my right to vote so why should I charged to exercise my right to carry a firearm?

[The Annoyed Man]

[time to rant]
I would argue that "reasonable restrictions" on firearms and the RKBA should be no more and no less restrictive than the same standard on free speech. Arguments which state that laws against shouting "FIRE!" in a theater justify laws against certain kinds of firearm ownership or carrying are headed down the wrong logical path for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, it isn't illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a theater if there really IS a fire in the theater. It only rises to the level of illegal when it is not true, and therefore threatens the public safety by inciting people to stampede unnecessarily in an effort to escape the theater, and possibly leading to the injury of innocent people.

The analogous act in firearms would be the illegal discharge of a firearm within city limits. Yes, it should be illegal to shoot your gun into the air at midnight on New Years Eve, because those bullets have to come down somewhere, and they unnecessarily put other people's lives and property at risk. However, if you are shooting your gun at a specified bad guy and in self-defense, then your discharge of a firearm within the city limits is not illegal, nor should it ever be so if legitimately applied.

To argue that the visible presence of a loaded firearm on my person is calculated to cause alarm about what I might do with it and must therefore be suppressed is analogous to arguing that the visible presence of a mouth on my face with a tongue in it is calculated to cause alarm that I might shout "FIRE!" in a theater. When someone is alarmed at what the other person might do when that other person has never given others any cause for alarm, then the problem isn't with the person with the gun or the mouth; the problem is with the person who is freaking out about what others might do without logical justification for alarm. People like that need to get a grip and grow up. Such people, in my view, are emotionally immature, and intellectually handicapped.

The unfortunate reality that comes out of this emotional immaturity is two-fold. One reality is that the alarm from the chicken-littles of this world about what I might do with my gun or my mouth have caused them to pass laws restricting my RKBA, and to a lesser extent, my 1st Amendment rights, when I have never given them a reason to have such fears about me in the first place. Those fears are entirely internal to them, and have nothing to do with me, and they judge me guilty of something I have not done, and punish me in advance by restricting my rights. The other unfortunate reality is that not one single law that arose out of the alarm from the chicken-littles of this world about what I might do with my gun or my mouth has ever deterred someone with criminal intent from doing something vile with their gun or their mouth.

So NO, I don't view CHL law as a "reasonable" restriction. It IS the law, and so consequently, I have one so as to avoid as much unpleasantness as possible. But I do think that it is unreasonable for chicken-littles to impose that restriction on me, particularly when I defy anyone to demonstrate to me where CHL law ever stopped a criminal from carrying a concealed weapon. It can't be done. A significant percentage of those same chicken-littles would argue vociferously for a "right" to abortion, or a "right" to gay marriage, without any "reasonable" restrictions, when neither of those "rights" is enumerated in the Constitution - let alone with the constitutional caveat that it "shall not be infringed." Whether or not one believes in an unrestricted right to abortion or gay marriage, it is illogical to assume that "shall not be infringed" means anything other than "shall NOT be infringed." The law is supposed to be logical. Where it is not logical, it is also not legitimate (which means something entirely different from "legal" or "illegal").

Now, I am not completely socially inept. If Texas had "constitutional carry" like Arizona does, I would still most likely conceal my weapon - perhaps not as diligently, and with more of an eye to my own comfort than whether or not my gun was absolutely invisible - but generally speaking, I would still probably conceal it. This would be for the same reasons that I open doors for ladies and generally smile at children. I don't desire to deliberately alarm people, and I do just want to get along with everyone. But this is a two way street, and others need to accept that Americans have rights. Those rights are enshrined in the Constitution. And just because the other person chooses not to exercise all of their rights, that does not give them the moral imperative to infringe on my free exercise thereof.

I am also a political realist. And while I would be happy if all restrictions on the RKBA were lifted tomorrow, I accept the reality that you can't get there from here without going through the inverse of the same political process which brought us to this point. So I grit my teeth, and I accept that the best way to accomplish this is incrementally.

But I sure do wish that the chicken-littles of this world would grow up and get a pair.
[/time to rant]

Thus endeth my 2¢.

[jimlongley]

Well enunciated, TAM, and I do have to add AZ and possibly NM to my list of exemplars for "constitutional carry" VT and AK have been the only ones for so long that my use of them in debate has become ingrained.

And I have to point out that if the 9th's recent decision remains, then it probably is now a First Amendment right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, despite the lack of one. I am so disgusted it makes me want to send back my one and only decoration in protest, except Kerry already did that, and then took them back and wrapped them around himself to show his legitimacy.

-------------------------------------------------------

“Well, gee what about drivers licenses?” This is a state granted privilege not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m not charged money to exercise my right to vote so why should I charged to exercise my right to carry a firearm?

One of my favorite examples, driver's licenses and registration: A driver's license is only required to drive on the public highways, and the same for registration. A vehicle used entirely on private property does not need to be registered, and driver who does not go on the public highway does not need to be licensed.

My favorite counter to that argument: I will accept licensing and registration of myself and certain of my firarms as long as the fees are used to build a proportional number of public shooting ranges for their use. By this I mean one within walking distance of my house, available 24/7/365, capable of bearing "heavy traffic" (I may want to shoot a 20mm there) and on and on ad nauseum.

This does not say I will register all of my guns, just like not all of my vehicles are registered. Ones that do not get used at the public ranges, such as ones that never leave my property or other private property, do not need to be registered. TX does not register or license bicycle riders (and don't get me started on that one) and the federal government exempts antique and replica firearms so let's say my 22s and 17s are also ineligible, as well as bows (and arrows) knives, trebuchets and other such implements. And the list could go on and on.

And guns used strictly on farms require a lesser level of registration as well as no licensing.

[gabe]

For one thing, it isn't illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a theater if there really IS a fire in the theater. It only rises to the level of illegal when it is not true, and therefore threatens the public safety by inciting people to stampede unnecessarily in an effort to escape the theater, and possibly leading to the injury of innocent people.

Well said.

By the same token, it's illegal to open fire in a theater, unless you're defending yourself from a VCA or have a similar justification for deadly force. Having a handgun, like having the ability to speak, is a constitutionally protected right.

[terryg]

Hi TAM,

As always, thank you for replying. I know that some of your comments were rebuttals to other replies. But as the OP, I hope I can clarify a few items.

I was not intending to imply that CHL laws will prevent criminals from carrying. Several responders seemed to pickup this angle. Criminals will do what criminals will do. I have never doubted that for one moment.

I was, however, asking if CHL laws give LEO a tool that can assist in catching, in some situations, a criminal who is carrying. But jimlongley helped me see that this is also not really true because without a borderline illegal search, there can still be no proof. As is said on this board numerous times: "Concealed is concealed." That goes for good guys as well as bad.

I also realized that part of me still 'likes' the CHL process because it imposes some measure of 'intentionality' to those who will carry in public. While acknowledging that this may be true to some extent, Jim demonstrated that this is indeed a more than a minor infringement in a few ways - including some folks who have no local classes available.

-----

However, I do find all this talk of wanting 'no' restrictions interesting. I understand the fear of the ever moving line - I get that. But this fear paralyzes and polarizes both sides of all contentious issues. The term 'arms' now encompasses weaponry that is orders of magnitude more powerful than what the framers could have possibly imagined.

It seems that majority of us are at least 'ok' with legal restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and those with certain diagnosed mental health conditions. But some have argued that, if it wasn't impossible, there should be no legal restrictions on having a nuke in your backyard. Perhaps that example is so extreme that it fails even be taken seriously.

But I wonder about grenade launchers. How many would argue for the right to openly carry a grenade launcher through Wal-Mart? Or what about pineapple grenades clipped you a belt - concealed? Those would not generate a panic because they would be out of sight. Forget about criminal purposes, isn't it prudent to weigh the damage risk from an ND against the potential benefit of an intentional discharge? Or am I just drinking too much leftist cool-aid again?