M14 Forum banner

12 states on path to guns with no permits

6031 Views 64 Replies 35 Participants Last post by  lbsnake925
Legislatures in a dozen states are considering laws that would eliminate requirements that residents obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

Gun-control advocates view the efforts as part of a long-range strategy to eventually weaken gun laws across the country. But supporters say armed, law-abiding citizens prevent crime.

Andrew Arulanandam, policy director for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, which supports these legislative efforts, argues that crime rates are low in four states — Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming — that already allow residents to carry without a permit. "Our viewpoint is, a good person will always be a good person," he said. "They don't need a license to be a good person."

STORY: States loosen concealed carry gun laws, stir debate
Brian Malte, the director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argues the permitless systems put law enforcement officers in a bad situation when they encounter someone with a weapon, and he's critical of efforts that would allow people who have never even shot a firearm to carry one in public.

"They want a gun in every nook and cranny in society with no permission needed and no background check," Malte said, adding, "This is just a recipe for disaster."

States that have been or are considering bills in current legislative sessions include Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virgina, according to the NRA.

South Dakota could be the fifth state to join the ranks of permit-less carry states. Lawmakers last week passed a measure allowing anyone 18 and older with a valid state driver's license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they don't have a background that would otherwise prohibit them from getting a permit. The bill awaits action from Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Mike Milstead, the sheriff of Minnehaha County, the state's largest, says his office processes about 2,000 permits a year, of which 30 to 40 are rejected because applicants have something in their backgrounds.

"The tough part will be on the small number of people that think they should have a permit that shouldn't," he said.

Wyoming's law went into effect in July. The state continues to issue permits for people who want to travel out of state, said Christopher Lynch, the project manager for the state's concealed firearms program.

In New Hampshire, Republican Rep. J.R. Hoell's bill has cleared the House. Hoell points to the recent school shooting in Chardon, Ohio, as a failure of gun control. "Gun-free zones kill people," he said.

Ellis also reports for the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-05/drivers-license-gun-permits/53391932/1
  • Like
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Great news!

a moron: said:
Brian Malte, the director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argues the permitless systems put law enforcement officers in a bad situation when they encounter someone with a weapon, and he's critical of efforts that would allow people who have never even shot a firearm to carry one in public.
As for this guy, I mean come on. When an officer encounters someone with a weapon, it's usually the kind of person who carries what he wants when he wants regardless of permits. For anyone else, the weapon is not a threat to the officer. And who's going to buy a weapon and not even try it out? I've heard of people like that, but they've all admitted they're unwilling to use it as anything more than a scary object to begin with.

Enough preaching to the choir, we all know this...
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I prefer to have those carrying concealed be screened with a background check. Then you know the person is clean. Cop rolls up on and sees that you have a CCW. He thinks....he's on my side. Not the case if everyone is carrying. Just the hassle to get one makes sure that only those interested in personal safety and are responsible carry concealed. Hurdles are there for a reason other than to hassle us. They thin the herd.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I prefer to have those carrying concealed be screened with a background check. Then you know the person is clean. Cop rolls up on and sees that you have a CCW. He thinks....he's on my side. Not the case if everyone is carrying. Just the hassle to get one makes sure that only those interested in personal safety and are responsible carry concealed. Hurdles are there for a reason other than to hassle us. They thin the herd.
I would counter that by SOP, anytime pulled over, the LEO checks your status, if they find you clean, then CCW (or if you have a gun) is a non issue. If they find you dirty, then any gun is illegal. Only then should they be concerned if you have a gun( or ammo or mags or knives or tasers or clubs ,etc). IMO, all LEO does( and should) conduct every traffic stop as if someone from the vehicle could pull a gun and shoot them.

Also, criminals don't follow the rules, permits are for honest folks and a source of revenue, but only a fraction are paying. The fact is, the 99.9% who shouldn't have a gun, also dont apply for permits, they get and carry guns by illegal means.
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Is that check as rigorous as a background check for a CCW????? Does it pick up issues from other states and locations, mental health adjudications, etc. I have no idea where the screen database comes from.
Also, criminals don't follow the rules, permits are for honest folks and a source of revenue, but only a fraction are paying. The fact is, the 99.9% who shouldn't have a gun, also dont apply for permits, they get and carry guns by illegal means.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. It is just that simple
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I prefer to have those carrying concealed be screened with a background check. Then you know the person is clean. Cop rolls up on and sees that you have a CCW. He thinks....he's on my side. Not the case if everyone is carrying. Just the hassle to get one makes sure that only those interested in personal safety and are responsible carry concealed. Hurdles are there for a reason other than to hassle us. They thin the herd.
First of all, I have yet to meet a cop who thinks that we are on his side, and rightfully so. Whether I have a CCW or not he/she should never relax, or assume that no threat exists. Waving my CCW out the window and saying "hey, we're on the same side" is going to do absolutely zilch to assuage the LEO's fear. We just had a recent example in Wyoming where a Marine vet was stopped and harassed because when the deputies ran his info it came back that he had a CCW.

Secondly, not having a CCW doesn't mean that a weapon won't be present. In fact armed and dangerous felons will never take the time to get a CCW. But just to play along, do you think that them flunking a background check will prevent them from carrying? Do gang-bangers apply for CCW's and when rejected decide to no longer be gang-bangers?

You are right about one thing: the hassles involved obtaining a CCW in many states does "thin the herd". It does decrease the number of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS that are able to carry. Sadly it has zero impact on reducing the number of violent criminals carrying guns.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 4
I prefer to have those carrying concealed be screened with a background check. Then you know the person is clean. Cop rolls up on and sees that you have a CCW. He thinks....he's on my side. Not the case if everyone is carrying. Just the hassle to get one makes sure that only those interested in personal safety and are responsible carry concealed. Hurdles are there for a reason other than to hassle us. They thin the herd.
Not a lot of thinning involved when you're trying to thin out those who break the law, because permits are just another law. I like Wyoming's idea of maintaining a permit system for those who want to carry out of state. That lets you show your permit to a cop with the same effect described above, but doesn't restrict other good citizens who don't want to have to deal with the permit system (or are still waiting for their permit) from being able to carry.

I like Montana's setup, where anything is carryable in the woods, and the only restriction in town is that you have to have a permit to conceal, but can still open carry. My only issue with it is that I don't want to feel flashy with a sidarm strapped to my waist, or have to worry about it being illegal when unintentionally concealed under my jacket in an open carry holster.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Moron said:
STORY: States loosen concealed carry gun laws, stir debate
Brian Malte, the director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argues the permitless systems put law enforcement officers in a bad situation when they encounter someone with a weapon, and he's critical of efforts that would allow people who have never even shot a firearm to carry one in public.[/url]
My head hurts.
When did the Brady buffoons start speaking for LE?
No, no it does not.
Just as stated by others before, rules are only followed by the lawful.
Good hell, I hope that guy does not produce offspring.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
My head hurts.
When did the Brady buffoons start speaking for LE?
No, no it does not.
Just as stated by others before, rules are only followed by the lawful.
Good hell, I hope that guy does not produce offspring.
Dunno if it was intentional, but we both reffered to him as "moron" in the quote box GI1
Dunno if it was intentional, but we both reffered to him as "moron" in the quote box GI1
Yes, yes it was.
I love being a techie.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
The legislature has been kicking the issue around for over a year here in Kentucky and it has yet to come up for a vote. I wish someone would get it in gear and get it voted on as I think it would pass fairly handily. Personally, I will still keep my CCW permit for when I travel but it is always nice to gain more freedom.
I have been going through my permit proccess here in NY. I started the proccess January 3rd. I have been printed, back ground checked, sent to a class, paid all together 350 dollars and STILL am waiting to find out if/when I get it. Thankfully I live in a good county where you need to have a good reason NOT to get it, but I wish it wasn't such a hassle. I do know that the Sheriff has given me the go ahead, but then it has to be approved by the county judge...the best part is, if for some reason I get denied they get to keep my money!
I prefer to have those carrying concealed be screened with a background check. Then you know the person is clean. Cop rolls up on and sees that you have a CCW. He thinks....he's on my side. Not the case if everyone is carrying. Just the hassle to get one makes sure that only those interested in personal safety and are responsible carry concealed. Hurdles are there for a reason other than to hassle us. They thin the herd.
I use to think more along these lines, but the document says this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And after some soul searching I'm on board with constitutional carry, both open and concealed and I know this is off the wall but long guns too.
  • Like
Reactions: 5
I use to think more along these lines, but the document says this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And after some soul searching I'm on board with constitutional carry, both open and concealed and I know this is off the wall but long guns too.
It's a long slow road, but sometimes it seem's like we are making our way back to "Shall NOT be infringed"

Good for these states and may they join, AK.,AZ,VT, and WY.


"An armed society is a polite society."
This is a prime example of how even Pro gun groups twist words to seem like they did something, the NRA calls having to get a permit and jump through hoops etc as a 'Right to Carry State' when its clearly a privelege, so now we have a new term called Constitutional Carry which is actually a right to carry. LOL Im glad to see this and hope it spread to Florida
The concept, Gentlemen, is Liberty - and that is enshrined in our Constitution. All "anti-gun laws" are unconstitutional - we are completely free citizens with regard to any of our Rights until we do something to become felons, period. The Right (not privilege) to "Keep and Bear" Arms is simply "to own and carry guns", period. No exceptions, no restrictions. "Shall Not Be Infringed" has a meaning - an Infringement is a "violation or restriction" upon a Right. Congress does not even have the Constitutional authority to restrict, let alone abolish this Right. Read the document, People! The Bill of Rights merely acknowledges the proper State of Nature, under God.

During the early days of this nation, this was completely understood. Every home and cabin was defended by a rifle or pistol, and every gentleman rode into town in the 1700's wearing a sword and, usually, a pistol. They didn't have police departments - they did not Need any!!!

The fact that we have allowed this to change to mere "permission" from the government regarding any weapons ownership or use issue is a tragedy and is in fact Tyranny, encroching a little at a time, due to the laziness and lack of understanding of our badly educated masses.

You don't bother or inconvenience the law abiding to ensure tranquility - you lock up or execute the dangerous, the insane, or the incompetent. Everyone else should always be free to go about their business, unless or until they prove unworthy of their Rights by abusing others with them. All of this works if everyone knows about Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. The United States was founded as a Christian Republic, and within this framework, most rules are self enforcing particularly when The Golden Rule is Standard Operating Procedure for all citizens. It is only as we have become more self centered, pagan and heathen that things have started to come apart. Christianity imposes Internal Controls on it's followers - so you need a lot less cops and government. Without the traditional Judao-Christian Values, you will never have enough of either.

You are either safe to be out in society with the rest of us, or you need to be in a cage - or six feet under, if you have done enough to deserve that. Under those conditions, there is very little to worry about. Anything less is an affront to the Constitution, and the God Given Rights acknowledged, (NOT granted) by the Bill of Rights.

Territorial Law in Kansas in the previous Century reflected this reality. Even a felon, once he had "served his time" and "paid his debt to society" was, upon his release, by law, given a horse, a saddle and saddleblanket, a bedroll and a Winchester repeating rifle with ammo. He was restored to society, and expected to not infringe again - or he would get the same or worse the next time.

We don't need background checks. We need Strong Morals, Swift Punishment and the good citizens of America All carrying! CC
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
SD among other states is getting back to the point when once youve served your sentence your restored to full citizenship.Depending on the felony it can be 5-15 yrs before the right to'have control of or carry a firearm is restored" in SD.The effectively lifetime denial of firearms rights
known as" lautenburg
provision" in which there were originally never any civil rights revoked, the state (SD) responded (since '05') by revoking the right to have a firearm from one yr of conviction for domestic violence, thereafter all civil rights including firearms rights "shall be restored" .This provision is also retroactive.SDCL 22-14-15,22-14-15.1 and 22-14-15.2./18USC s 921(a)(20)r Fed Law recognizes the states right to restore civil rights including gun rights. (There is disagreement among the courts concening legality of revoking rights w/o recourse for restoration)
Provision for a loss of rights was supposedly mandatory in order to restore those rights according to some fed courts AFAIK.
SD gun rights orgs fought this DV bill saying it gave wieght to legallity of lautenburg but in reality it was the only way to restore firearms rights to 10s of thousands of South Dakotans whose firearm rights were retroactively stolen under guise of fed law.

WWW://.cadc. US Courts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf

PS If its on the govs desk I believe its (no CC permit required) a done deal for all practical purposes
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top