…then why not make concealed carry permit applications public?
Delegate Lee Ware, a Republican from Virginia’s 65th District (Powhatan and Chesterfield Counties), has proposed legislation that would amend Paragraph 18.2-308 of the Virginia Code to require that clerks taking concealed carry permit applications withhold information about applicants from public disclosure.
One of the interesting things about gun owners and Second Amendment supporters is their apparent reluctance to let their fellow citizens know that they own weapons and carry them on their person in public. Given that a key argument supporting widespread gun ownership and public carrying of concealed firearms relies on the assertion that this would have some measurable deterrent effect on criminals, it would seem that owners would want others to know that they at least might be carrying.
I haven’t heard Delegate Ware’s argument in support of the bill–it presumably provides some protection against government confiscation, for example–but I can think of at least one argument against it: that fellow citizens, especially neighbors, should have access to some knowledge about which people around them own and carry firearms.
I would like to know, for example, which of my neighbors own weapons, and which of my coworkers have a pistol in a shoulder holster. Whether or not the gentleman next to me in the pew, working in my kid’s school, or the guy eating wings next to me at the sports bar is armed would be nice to know in the event something takes place that makes the carrier want to use it. I especially want to know if wings guy is packing when he orders a beer. This is true whether or not I am armed.
An example which hits close to home, the Virginia Tech shootings back in April 2007, illustrates this well: those who argue that armed students could have limited the tragedy of that day should understand fellow students’ desire to know who else besides the shooter might be armed. The justice claim of people who wish to arm themselves as they interact with others in public places conflicts with the that of fellow citizens to know which of the people around them might be armed.
Which should precede is another matter. I am sympathetic with the argument that owners need some protection from government confiscation (though I think that shared understandings about the right, not secrecy, provide protection from this). But given the relatively low chance of a general federal effort to seize privately owned firearms, I wonder if the people around armed citizens should get more sympathy for their claim: that people who walk around with firearms should have to warn others that a weapon is near.
#1 by Bob S. at February 1st, 2010
| Quote
So Stan,
What do you suggest?
Those that carry concealed be forced to wear identifying marks on their clothing?
Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a firearm being ‘concealed’?
Next, do you have any clue as to how little danger there is from people who carry concealed?
You talk about the 1% doctrine yet in Texas the conviction rate for licensed concealed handgun carriers is less then 0.25% of all convictions!!!
Aren’t you the one worried and exhibiting fear over something that is unlikely to happen?
#2 by Weer'd Beard at February 1st, 2010
| Quote
“Those that carry concealed be forced to wear identifying marks on their clothing?”
Maybe some simple stitch on patches. Maybe like a series of triangles!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg
It’s already gun-control advocate approved!
#3 by mike w. at February 1st, 2010
| Quote
Since young blacks are statistically more violent than the rest of the population do you have a “right” to know where each and every one of them live? Should their personal information be made public?
You have NO justice claim to my personal information. None at all. You have no more right to know whether I’m carrying than I have a right to know whether you bought matches & gasoline yesterday.
I don’t carry because it’s a measureable public benefit. I carry for myself and my family. No one else. Whether my carrying benefits society as a whole is irrelevant. Sure, it’s a nice by-product of my exercising rights, but it’s not why I carry nor is the existence of such a benefit necessary in order for me to do so.
#4 by mike w. at February 1st, 2010
| Quote
Furthermore, under you “changing social norms” theory what happens if society decides (with no evidence backing their claim) that a particular group is “dangerous” and must be singled out & identified?
Would you be OK with forcing anyone with a hyphenated last name to publish all their personal information? I’m sure if it targeted you you’d SCREAM about your privacy rights.
#5 by mike w. at February 1st, 2010
| Quote
FL’s data on CCW permit holders commiting crimes with their firearms over a 22 year period
roughly .00024% of those with permits had theirs revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearms
roughly .075% of Floridians with currently valid permits had them revoked FOR ANY REASON
Given the facts about how often CCW holders actually misuse their firearms it is demonstratably true that your fears of CCW holders around you are 100% irrational. Furthermore the facts bear out that you have no compelling justificaton whatsoever for invading the privacy of CCW holders.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
#6 by R. Stanton Scott at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Hyperbolic Nazi comparison! Good one, Pirate Boy! Is that how you guys debate?
If that’s the best you got, I think we’re done here–Godwin’s Law and all that.
My desire to know what is going on around me has nothing to do with the relative criminality of those in possession of firearms. It has to do with wanting to know the various possible outcomes in a given situation–when a bar fight begins I would like to know whether gun play might be involved so I can leave. If Susie Soccermom carries a gun to the local practice field, I might want to keep my children away just because I don’t want them around guns, whether from fear or a simple desire to raise my kids without exposing them to weapons.
When you go out in public you give up some measure of your privacy and create a justice claim conflict between wanting to keep certain things hidden and a claim that others should know about their environment. You shouldn’t be surprised that others will press this claim, and it is not automatically illegitimate. Your “right” ends where my nose begins.
And I notice no one has addressed the central point: that you get no deterrence from a hidden weapon.
#7 by Bob S. at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Stan,
This is where you show your bigotry again.
Do you want to know who has AIDS? Those people who go out in public should give up an amount of privacy according to you, right?
How about marking the cars of those who have been arrested for drunk driving? They are more statistically likely to be a problem then gun owners?
Or how about you? What issues do you have?
We have a right to know if you have anger management issues right?
Do you disclose all that “could” affect those around you? NOT A CHANCE.
Do you carry a knife in your pocket? Do you disclose that?
How about Pepper Spray/OC? I have asthma — Do i have a right to know if anyone in the area is carrying those items?
Your “right” ends where my nose begins.
And as long as the firearm stays in the holster, it doesn’t interfere with your nose — UNLESS you try to stick you nose in my business.
And I notice no one has addressed the central point: that you get no deterrence from a hidden weapon.
BUNK! Criminals do have to worry about concealed weapons. The fact that the state law allows concealed carry means the criminals have to make other plans.
The fact that in a crowd, it is more likely someone is carrying means that criminals are less likely to strike at a place with many people.
But I’ll take your ruse and turn it around.
IF you claim that concealed carry has no deterrence, then that is sufficient reason to allow Open Carry also in most places.
Then the criminal has to wonder if X number of people are Openly Carrying how many of Y people are carrying Concealed.
So, Stan -before you go out in public again can you explain how you are going to be disclosing your issues?
Anger Management,Drunk Driving, Child Molestation charges, Rape attempts/Convictions, Communicable Diseases….
What “danger” to society do you represent?
#8 by mike w. at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Notice that stan yet again ignores ALL data presented, ALL questions posed to him, and dismisses a completely valid comparison simply because he doesn’t like it.
Refute the comparison logically if you disagree with it.
#9 by mike w. at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Since you think it so important to know who carries surely you are a proud supporter of my right to open carry my firearm while next to you at church or at the sports bar.
#10 by Weer'd Beard at February 3rd, 2010
| Quote
FYI Stan, only because you’ve mentioned it several times in the post above this one (tho you appear to have little interest in actually discussing the issues)
I carry a gun to protect me in the event of a deadly-force attack. The only “Deterrence” I will have in this instance is my attacker staring down the rifling of my gun and deciding digression might be the better part of valor.
I carry concealed because it’s my business and I feel no need to involve others in my personal choice of carrying a gun through my day, as well as allowing me some tactical advantage against an opponent who both is unaware I’m unarmed, and also unaware where on my body my gun is. If I open carry I do not have the option to not involve my gun. If I am robbed I must either draw it, or have it stolen.
furthermore my choice of carrying concealed is to protect people who DO NOT CARRY.
When criminals rob people in places where conceal carry is exercised attacks will be thwarted. Sometimes bad people will get shot. This word gets around. When a criminal selects a victim, if people are allowed to carry concealed, they might start to contemplate that even you are carrying, as you are as visibly armed as I am.
But then again, you aren’t interested in actually discussing the issue, are you?
#11 by mike w. at February 8th, 2010
| Quote
The justice claim of people who wish to arm themselves as they interact with others in public places conflicts with the that of fellow citizens to know which of the people around them might be armed.
How do you figure you (or anyone else) have a justice claim to know who around them are armed?
There are all kinds of things you might want to know about those around you, but which are none of your damn business.
Also consider that we have CONCEALED carry licenses. You do know the definition of concealed right?
Would your views change if everyone with a CCW suddenly began open carrying? You claim that your issue with CCW is that you don’t know who’s armed.
Would you become accepting and tolerant of our rights, or would you remain an intolerant bigot & freak out at the sight of all these openly armed folks around you?
If we OC’d the conflicting justice claim you cite would become a moot point.
You’ve made it quite clear you are against citizens exercising their right to bear arms. If we started OC’ing I highly suspect your bigotry would remain because you simply do not want armed people around you (unless they’re police, then it’s magically OK)
You’re no better than those who opposed racial integration. You don’t want “those types” around you nor do you want your children exposed to them, and you wish to restrict their rights because of it.
#12 by Bob S. at February 8th, 2010
| Quote
Think Stan should just consider that everyone he interacts with may be armed….then his “justice claim” also becomes moot.
Wonder if Heinlein’s quote applies here as to why Stan wants to know.
“An Armed Society is a Polite Society.Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
#13 by mike w. at February 15th, 2010
| Quote
As usual Stan chooses not to engage in discussion, present facts, or in any way defend his position.
I’d hoped for more from him, but I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised.
#14 by mike w. at August 26th, 2010
| Quote
Interesting that Stan makes no attempt to answer any questions posed to him in this comment thread.
I’d love to know how he thinks he has any “justice claim” to my personal information.
I think if the tables were turned and HE were required to put out all of his personal information for the world to see he’d sing a different tune.
#15 by R. Stanton Scott at August 26th, 2010
| Quote
Yes, I think that I have a valid justice claim to information on who in my neighborhood is purchasing firearms.
I can think of several reasons for this beyond the deterrence goal–for example, helping the approval authority catch people like the Virginia Tech killer, who was ineligible to purchase firearms but was able to anyway. Making his information public would have allowed other citizens or watchdog groups keep him from falling through the cracks without stopping purchases by responsible and eligible citizens.
No, I would have no problem giving out personal information if I decided to purchase a hand gun.