Posted on 12/22/2016 5:39:57 AM PST by marktwain
By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-Carry permits do not have to be expensive and complex. The New Hampshire permit has been fairly easy to obtain for many years, if you already had a permit from your state of residence.
During the last few months I have renewed a couple of carry permits. It is not intensely difficult, but when you have better things to do, it can be irritating.
Some of the requirements make no sense. Others were obviously put in as poison pills during the passage of the original bill. Many seem designed to discourage people from obtaining a permit.
As John Lott has noted, the more expense, in time or money, or both, that it takes to obtain a permit, the smaller the percentage of people who will make the effort to obtain one. It is not a straight slope. The smaller the percentage of people become, the willingness to jump through hoops grows exponentially. At the end of that scale are people who choose their career so that they can carry the means to protect themselves and their family.
Here are some silly requirements I have noted to obtain a carry permit.
Fingerprints. Silly. Not needed. Several states do not require them. An unnecessary expense and expenditure of time. Florida adds another $42 to “process finger prints”. May be it is a cash cow for them. Arizona recommends two fingerprint cards for their permit, doubling the printing expenditure on the applicant’s part. For Arizona, it is a way to try to assure a good set of prints. They only submit one copy, and one copy will (if it is legible) be enough for a permit.
Taking of fingerprints by the police.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Our CCL law actually isn’t bad, other than the ridiculous expense anyway. I see very few “no guns” signs on businesses. And the list of prohibited places for most of the state doesn’t suck completely.
Chicago has a few, Cook Cty Forest Preserves, METRA trains and busses none of which we frequent. And mostly we just ignore the signage. Concealed means concealed after all.
We also have reciprocity with most of the contiguous States so that’s good to. Funny thing, my IL permit is valid in WI but a WI permit isn’t valid in IL.
We are still planning on getting the hell out of here in the next 2 years though. We’ve had it with both the winters and the perfect politics.
Merry Christmas!
L
Silly Carry Permits,,
Nuff Said.
I’m sure this will surprise no one.
In Boston, I was printed and photographed like a criminal, had to go to the police range to demonstrate proficiency and I STILL CAN”T CARRY because Boston is may issue. At least with the Mass permit I was able to get non resident LTC in New Hampshire and Maine.
In my opinion, any and all of the bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to obtain carry permits, concealed or otherwise, are, in fact, infringements upon a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
So glad I escaped from NY over 35 years ago to live in (somewhat) freerer states. Still more oppressive than I like, but at least I have owned one in 2 eastern states...
PA !NO prints!No class!Open and conceal carry.Shall issue.
I hope that New Hampshire goes Constitutional carry this year.
They have been ripe for a long time.
DIY Georgia O’Keeffe pictures?
To my knowledge, there is no federal statutory law concerning the issuance of concealed-carry permits. All fifty states have passed laws allowing qualified individuals to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from a designated government authority at the state and/or local level.
My problem is that the states have allowed the feds to delve into states rights and thus have a greater control of a militia or even create a national list of gun owners which is not the intent of the founders and their efforts to supply states with their own ability to defend themselves even from the feds.
In a 2013 article from the New York Times, Jack Heeley wrote:
“Lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced bills that would nullify any new efforts [in Washington] to further restrict access to guns or high-capacity magazines within their borders. Some have provocative language calling for states to arrest and prosecute federal agents who dare to enforce new firearms regulations.”
This scares the feds to death. Hence sneaking into state laws to gain more control. Even if it costs the states the ability to provide deterrent to crimes proven in many extended obsrvations. And that’s what it’s all about. Control and power, not democratic theory.
red
There is the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, it is not being enforced.
Wouldn’t it be something if the laws were changed so that the same restrictions that govern gun ownership were used as the criteria for who could vote?
To work as a bartender in several towns years ago, I had to have a town-issued ID card, including a thumbprint. The same from the state, when I became a licensed real estate agent.
“There is the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, it is not being enforced.”
What more would be legal.....?
In a fully enforced Second Amendment, any fee or tax required to be paid to have or carry a firearm would be unconstitutional.
In a fully enforced Second Amendment, having to wait before purchasing a firearm would be an infringement and unconstitutional.
In a fully enforced Second Amendment, any laws against carrying any common weapon in public would be unconstitutional.
In other words, the assumption would be that owning and carrying weapons would be a right, infringed in only very unusual circumstances (such as in prison, or security areas inside military reservations).
That is the way it primarily was before 1900, with some exceptions in the South that came from the federal occupation after the war between the states.
Your breakdown above ‘splains it All!
Thanks.
I’m told that if 50 liberal lawyers get locked in a room for 100 years, and fed occasionally, they will re-invent the Constitution. But chimpanzees can do it in less time and just need bananas instead of legal aides to do their work so they cost less. Seems like every time they want something they have to figure out how to change the obvious.
red
Change enforced to protected. That’s what the second amendment is supposed to do.
I was reading the other day that RKBA is a preexisting right. The Second Amendment isn’t to grant the right, but to protect it.
It is a pre-existing right. “Progressives” simply deny the existence of such things.
But I do not see much difference in enforcing a pre-existing right or protecting a pre-existing right.
Maybe I am missing something.
Agreed! It’s long over due.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.