I swear I don’t understand geographic restrictions on concealed carry. How does a legally owned concealed gun threaten anyone in “bars, schools, university classrooms or busses” any more than it would on the street? Setting aside the Second Amendment and non-infringement and all that, leaving out the possibility of armed citizens defending against the Jared Lee Loughner’s of the world, how does a concealed carry ban prevent gun crime? Unless you routinely screen for firearms or frisk at random, a ban will only have an impact AFTER someone is suspected of or apprehended for a crime. In other words, someone who wants to commit a gun crime will not be deterred by a gun ban. So why bother?

18 Responses to Question of the Day: Concealed Carry. Where Do You Draw The Line?

  1. Robert, the answer to your question is that the purpose of concealed carry restrictions is to try and water down shall-issue concealed carry laws. Note that almost none of the restrictions existed before shall-issue concealed carry permits were made law. Anti-gunners figure that if they can throw as many roadblocks as possible in front of CCW permit holders many won’t bother.

    The other thing they try to do (I saw them do this in North Carolina in the late 90’s when NC was getting its shall-issue) is to go door-to-door to private businesses and warn them about the impending bloodbath that is sure to ensue if they don’t post “no weapons” signs on their doors. These helpful activists even supplied the signs! And of course, given the risk-averse mentality of many business owners, quite a few of them bought into the scheme.

    The net result of all this is that many people with CCW permits rarely or never carry because of the difficulty of complying with the restrictions. Back before “shall issue”, when off-duty cops and the politically connected were the only ones with CCW permits, these restrictions weren’t in place and yet somehow there were relatively few bloodbaths at schools, bars or government buildings.

  2. Just to play a bit of devil’s advocate, I would guess that they would argue that in bars, drinking will affect your judgement. (my response: if you are carrying in a bar, don’t drink. We don’t force people to take cabs/public transport to bars, so we are willing to trust people not to drink.)

    In schools, it’s think of the children, we can’t have an ND near them. (Slightly related: Robert, have you seen the DEA Agent showing off his “Glock 40” in a classroom when he accidentally shoots himself? I think it’s a little old, though.)

    They are mainly trying to prevent negligent discharges or crimes of passion.

    My personal philosophy for gun laws, which I would love to hear feedback on, is you would be free to go about your business (carrying, owning accessories, etc.) until you hurt someone or threatened them. Then the amount of punishment would be enhanced by certain factors. (potentially things like proximity to a “special place” such as school, government building, etc. or the type of weapon used.)

  3. Geographic restrictions are either appeasing to certain parties or a balkanizing feature introduced by the antis to make it inconvenient or downright difficult to lawfully carry…or both.

  4. I agree with Lance’s idea to a point. I understand people wanting to make certain areas special and more protected(pipe dream) and increasing penalties for crimes commited there. I tend to view it in the same light as Hate Crime laws, I don’t think they should be in place. If you shoot someone, not in self-defense, what difference does location or your motivation make? I also don’t agree with laws that add penalties to crimes commited with a gun. Again, what difference does it make if in the commission of a crime I shoot someone or bludgeon them with my tomahawk?

    I tend to live by this quote from Thomas Jefferson, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

  5. Lawmakers and concealed Weapons permit holders should be able to carry guns wherever they want. According to the FBI, there is a violent attack in this country every 22 seconds. This is not 1950s Mayberry USA anymore.

    Why should people have to fall victim to these attacks? As a former police homicide detective, I have had to go to way too many autopsies where the victim could have prevented his or her murder if he or she had been carrying a concealed weapon.

    People of smaller physical size, people with disabilities, and people who are outnumber by criminal attackers need guns to even the odds. Another FBI survey showed that 52 % of violent attacks involved more than one attacker. That’s more than half.

    I will keep saying it until the lawmakers listen… Stricter gun laws will not keep criminals from using them. There are laws against rape, robbery, and murder, but the same criminals break them every 22 seconds. Gun laws will only make it easier from them.

    • Jeff Morelock writes: “According to the FBI, there is a violent attack in this country every 22 seconds.”

      I always beware of statistics when they are framed in these cute ways. This is exactly the same math the boat salesman uses to show that you can afford a new cabin cruiser for the price of a cup of coffee each day, etc. We know how that generally works out.

      The real stats: violent crime has fallen from 1.9 million incidents in 1992 to 1.3 million in 2009, despite an increase in population of over 52 million. So in real terms, say, incidents per 100,000 population, violent crime has declined from 757 per 100K to 429 to 100k in these years. So the incidence rate of violent crime today is approximately 57 percent what it was in 1992.

      • I would contend that this coincides with the states changing the laws to shall carry.

        The only people that gun laws control are law abiding citizens. If a criminal wishes to perform a crime using a firearm, a law isn’t going to stop them. The possibility that their victim won’t be easy meat by carrying a concealed firearm, on the other hand, does tend to have a chilling effect.

        To me, making certain geographical areas off limits to law-abiding concealed carry owners simply marks that area as the most likely place for someone that is of criminal (and probably cowardly) intent to focus on since there won’t be any possibility of someone there being armed and firing back. I believe the term is “soft target”. These laws are essentially painting a bullseye on these locations.

        Just my two cents. Remember, opinions are like sphincters. Everyone has one and they probably all stink to someone.

  6. I agree with Evan about the motives of some. But I think others are motivated by a perception of gun owners as inherently violent, unsavory folks that civilized people shouldn’t have to worry with.

    I think there are two basic types in the anti-gun camp: the elite who want control (the cynical few) and the ground-level, everyman types (the naive many) who think that legislation will keep them safe.

  7. About the only place I would personally draw the line is any area where dangerous offenders are being kept in custody…..jails, prisons, detention facilities, correctional boot camps, etc.

    Outside those areas, I think CCW permit holders should be good to go.

  8. “About the only place I would personally draw the line is any area where dangerous offenders are being kept in custody”

    Would that include the Senate?

  9. Ralph, that would not include The Senate, because the dangerous offenders there are not being kept captive in a place they desperately want to escape from.

  10. “So why bother?”

    As with all supporters of government force, it’s an example of magical thinking. Replace the things you said with the things they say in their minds and it makes perfect sense. The mere fact that all of history, current events, and the outcome of any reasoned logical though experiment forecast failure will not dissuade one tripping on power.

  11. I join the people who operate schools, hospitals, churches, bars, etc in their opposition to concealed carry for these locations.

    The qualifications for cc not rigorous enough for me. Have a look at the TTAG main page in recent days. In most states, there’s nothing to prevent folks like Gun Fu Guy, the pistol twirlers, and other halfwits from obtaining permits. Meanwhile, the gun hobby/sport/industry has no interest in seriously enforcing standards for arms and behavior on its own. And it is sworn to obstruct and flummox any government efforts to do so. You folks aren’t willing to accept anything but more guns and bigger guns and guns with greater capacity. You won’t bend and you honestly believe that the sun rises and sets on your Second Amendment ass. I don’t see any inclination to get along, only to get over wherever you can. That’s not terribly social behavior for me. A red flag, if you will.

    It would be nice to believe that if some portion of the population was carrying, that the most sober, wise, patient, and responsible among us would be the first to take up the responsibility. But that’s not who we get, is it? We get the folks who are most attracted to firearms, which is not exactly the same demographic. So we are going to get individuals like Gun Fu Guy. I was relieved to learn he’s in Bulgaria, but even that might not be far enough for me.

    So I’m with the Earp Brothers on this one. When you cowboys come to town, you can turn in your pistols at the office. And have a good time.

    The old Mayberry TV show came up earlier and you know, therein may lie a solution. How about this: carry a gun if you must, but you are prohibited to carry ammunition. If you need a bullet you can go ask Sheriff Andy for one.

    • Perhaps you should ask Utah and some Colorado schools how they’re getting along with concealed carry….

      • I don’t care. The state of Utah just memorialized a state gun. I’ve been hunting, shooting, loading, and smithing for 45 years, and even I think that’s a nutty stunt. I am a gun enthusiast. That doesn’t mean I want to live in a gun culture. Imagining my life as a Hollywood action movie does not have the same appeal for me as it seems to have for others, I guess.

        If you want to be a policeman, join the police. Take the screwy hours, depressing working conditions, and mediocre pay, and learn that keeping people safe has nothing to do with firearms 99 percent of the time. Cops who are required to carry off duty don’t generally relish the opportunity as much as many of you folks seem to do. Most I know despise and resent it.

        I don’t need a firearm, concealed or open, for my personal protection in public. And I didn’t ask for any backup from those who do carry, many of whom do not have the experience, qualifications, or basic temperament for the task. Make an earnest effort to raise the requirements so I can have some idea you know what you’re doing, and then I’ll think about it.

        • Well, to be honest, we could start by…

          making training classes tax deductible, and allowing extension of a permit every time you take a training class. You could have the police train you once your funds are freed up from other useless projects (hint: Drug War?).
          It’s true that the permitting requirements are pretty lax, because the requirements do not accurately reflect what can happen in a mano-a-mano robbery situation or an active shooter situation. Then again, the exercises for handling one-on-one scenarios can be easily taught in a day and reinforced with dry fire and airsoft force-on-force scenarios over time. The same is possibly true for acting in an active shooter scenario.

          And something is telling me that the cop’s handgun is for THEIR OWN personal protection moreso than others’…

        • and plus your personal and perceived lack of a need for a firearm DOES NOT mean you tell everyone to follow your lead by use of force.

  12. It won’t, Britain is the proof. Simply put, it is the job of criminals to break the law – they’re going to do it anyway, that’s the point. All legally held guns go bye-bye? Prepare to be get jumped, frequently, if you wanna obey the law. The criminals have no reason NOT to victimize you with their own, then illegalized, firearms which they will have – gauranteed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *