Just so you know where I’m coming from before I get started on a rant, let’s start off with two declarations:
- I do not believe a permit should be required for you to carry a handgun concealed.
- I do not believe that mandatory training should be a requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Obviously, there should be no confusion between me and that other Dick (Metcalf), which proves that all gun writers do not think alike. My thoughts on his brain fart can be found HERE. And, for what its worth, my hats are much more manly and better looking than the ones he wears!
Based on a very informal survey I devised it would seem that a lot of folks who read my blog – about 75% – agree with me on point number 1. We should acknowledge that it is expected that those taking the survey on my blog are probably gun people. Otherwise they would not be on my blog to start with. So, keep that in mind.
Interestingly, with regard to mandatory training question, about 25% disagree with me.
Now, I’m not a genius and some would argue that I’m not even very smart. I’m definitely not a mathematician or a statistician. However, I have been able to get through my life by applying, what we call here in West Virginia, hillbilly logic. Hillbilly logic is nothing more than being able to say that, “That shit don’t make sense.”
So, let me analyze the necessity for one, concealed carry permits and two, for mandatory training. And, I’ll do this not from a political or constitutional standpoint but from a logical standpoint.
First lets look at what a concealed carry permit allows you to do and that’s carry a handgun hidden on your person. It does not give you permission to pull it out and show it to your buddy while you shove fires in your face at McDonalds. Nor does it give you permission to wave it around in a crowded room yelling, “Make the voices stop!” Essentially, it gives you permission to do something no one will ever know you are doing. Well, unless the bad guys come for you. If they do, you may need to un-conceal your handgun to shoot them.
At the basic level, a concealed carry permit gives you the ability to legally feel safe as opposed to illegally feeling the same way. 
Now I’m sure that the 25% will argue that we must have a license to drive a vehicle. This is an asinine analogy because driving a vehicle has nothing to do with your ability to protect your life and unless you live in some weird state of mind, the right to life is not something governed by religion or politics.
The 25% will also probably argue that the process to obtain a permit prevents felons and criminals from going about armed. This of course only makes sense if you accept the fact that criminals will obey the law. If you believe that, then the concealed carry permit is even more asinine because; felons are already prevented – by law – from being in procession of a firearm.
So what is the point of the concealed carry permit? Well, since most States require that you complete some sort of training in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, it must be there to insure safety. The question is safety while doing what? Carrying a hidden handgun.
Now, I don’t rate myself a firearms expert but if you put a handgun in your holster and carry it hidden, and don’t pull it out to show your buddy or wave it around in a crowd, that handgun, hidden in that holster, is about as safe as it can be.
Well, but, if you pull it out to shoot a bad guy, you need to be safe! Yeah, that makes sense but the problem is the permit does not give you permission to pull your handgun to shoot a bad guy; it only gives you permission to carry the handgun concealed. No one can give you permission to shoot an attacker and only you can decide if shooting an attacker is the correct course of action, based on the totality of the circumstances that only you are experiencing.
Interestingly, if we go back to the informal survey we find that only about 3% believe that you should be prosecuted for shooting an attacker if you did not have a concealed carry permit when you did it. This would lead us to deduce that most think the end justifies the means.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble with this: Shooting a bad guy and breaking the law (not having a permit) is OK, Do nothing wrong and breaking the law (carry without a permit) and you go to jail. Really? If I don’t need a permit to shoot a bad guy, why do I need a permit to not shoot a bad guy? 
Logically speaking, having to obtain the permission of a government agency in order to feel safe by doing something that no one will ever know you are doing, almost meets the definition of insanity. Additionally, requiring that a person be trained on how to feel safe and then to make them pay a fee to feel safe seems unfair to those who struggle to find enough money just to buy bologna.
To illustrate how illogical all this is, you live in a country where you can vote and select the direction this country will go, and select the folks who will decide the rules regarding concealed carry, without identification or training. But, if you want to feel safe and exercise the best possible way to remain safe, you must have both.
We don’t need permits or mandatory training to carry condoms or concealed handguns. It’s about protection. Use it if you need it. For the government to make a requirement that citizens receive training and obtain a permit before they tuck a J-Frame in their coat pocket lacks a foundation in logic. If they tuck that J-Frame in the belt line and blow off their happiness, they’ll know better next time.
In a perfect world anyone who wanted to could go to Gunsite for free. But in a perfect world no one would feel the need to have a handgun for protection. This is not a perfect world. Bad guys abound and practically and financially limiting our ability to protect ourselves from them creates opportunities for them to flourish. Here is a novel thought: Instead of creating gun free zones and carry permit procedures, why don’t we establish murder free zones by enabling the public to protect themselves without having to pay a tax and attend a training session that teaches them how to do something they are not being given permission to do?
I shouldn’t need a permit or training to carry a handgun concealed just like I don’t need a permit or training to wear thong underwear. The only way you are going to know if I am doing either is to try to hurt me or undress me. If you choose the latter best be gentle or your intentions might be mistaken.
Where is your permit? You’re breathing and don’t want to stop. What about your training, If I can be trusted to legally own a firearm then I should be able to mandate the necessary training I need.
Here are my common sense rules regarding concealed carry:
If you do stupid shit with a handgun and someone gets hurt, you’re in trouble.
If you shoot someone who didn’t need shooting with your handgun, you’re in trouble.
Gee, that was simple! Why didn’t I just start with that? I could have been writing about how much better the .270 is than the .30-06.
Richard,
One of the biggest problems with government is there incessant desire to turn the smallest of crimes by otherwise law abiding citizens into felonies which removes gun rights. Even traffic offenses will remove gun rights. DUI’s convictions void of injured party (victimless crimes) even remove gun rights, small wresting fights in arguments removes gun rights. Just about every crime today is a misdemeanor or a felony that mandates the removal of gun rights.
The traffic (DUI) felony offenses that eternally remove gun rights make absolutely no sense at all because they have absolutely nothing to do with the right to own or carry a firearm. Yet, the newly created felon is allowed to have his drivers license restored again, but never the right to own a firearm. It’s eternally removed for ever and ever… (ON VICTIMLESS CRIMES) Simple police stop and arrests… Like I’ve always said, its the police that are at fault for the loss of firearm rights. By the way, I agree the 270 is better than the 30-06 outside of 200-yards.
I know Dick Metcalf, and I enjoyed his hospitality some years ago at a Bianchi invitational shoot at the PASA range. He’s a fine gentleman, albeit with the attitude you’d expect from an Ivy League academic. Having seen some truly frightening gun handling at local ranges, I’m fully in favor of fairly rigorous firearms safety training. Not mandatory, because that gets the government involved, and they could screw up a sunset. But damn, people, watch where that muzzle is pointed, and fachrisake, keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot! As far as permits are concerned, I carried extensively without one, both as a Massachusetts resident and an undergraduate in New York City, until I turned 21 and could get my MA permit. It’s a useless formality, and tends to give local police chiefs a feeling of importance.
I don’t remember if I voted on these two questions or not. I am one of those who certainly agrees with your first premise (we shouldn’t need a permit). I am ambivalent on the second. I know a few folks that I’m convinced are too stupid (I use that term purposefully) to carry a concealed firearm.
How about this as a compromise position: those who undergo a certified training program will carry additional immunity from civil litigation in the event of a shooting (assuming it is a good shoot, etc., etc.). In addition, they will be able to get very low cost insurance against any action against them in the event the firearm is used in self-defense.
This would make it expensive to remain both stupid and untrained. I’m sure there’s some holes that can be shot in my proposition, but it is a start.
I’m personally of the opinion that gun manufacturers, especially those companies that build guns suitable for concealed-carry, should consider making CCW permit holders eligible for the same sales incentives that they extend to their customers who are in public LE/fire/EMS/military service, or who send in product-registration cards in return for a cash rebate. I see it as being similar to joining a Civilian Marksmanship Program-affiliated club in order to buy an M1 Garand at CMP pricing, or voluntarily taking driver-safety training in order to obtain discounted insurance – if you’re serious enough about lawfully carrying and using a defensive firearm that you “go the extra mile” in learning how to do so, you should be rewarded by making it easier and less costly to obtain such firearms.
It would be nice to see folks who are responsible enough to seek out and pay for independent training in the safe, lawful use of their guns, get rewarded for their responsibility by making the cost of their training “pay for itself” through discounted pricing, cash rebates, and/or extra gear like holsters, magazines, etc. And, for the crowd that flat-out refuses to get a CCW permit on grounds of cost, conscience, convictions or Constitutionality, and who look down on those that do as being suckers and/or slaves – no problem, simply pay the price on the tag like everyone else.
Besides, when I send a copy of my valid CCW permit to S&W, Glock or Springfield in exchange for my rebate, discount, or gear, the company gets documentation that I as their end-user customer have not only passed a criminal-history check, but I also have independently received training in at least rudimentary firearms use/safety/marksmanship/law which meets or exceeds the government-recommended standard in my jurisdiction. This gives the gun manufacturer positive publicity, by showing that they “put their money where their mouth is” by financially incentivizing their end-user customers to get training in the lawful use of their products – and in the worst-case scenario of a lawsuit, it lets them show that an end-user customer disregarded the training they documented as having received before purchasing one of the company’s products, when the customer misused that gun negligently or criminally.
If you want to get you hunting license, in a lot of places you have to get the safety course. The reason of getting a hunting license is to take the life of a creature not created by mankind. What is the reason to conceal carry? As a last resort, you might possible take the life of another person. Shooting on the range is a lot different than dealing with the pressure of bad guy/active shooter. Having the ability remain calm, and return aimed fire, without injuring anyone other than the bad guy, takes practice. What is easier to control, aim, and fire accurately: CC .380 super tiny or scoped hunting rifle? So, what is the worst case scenario for a CC: untrained CC, in a crowded Wal-Mart on Christmas Eve, and an active shooter? Morale of the story: Why do we have to have a safety course for hunting? I think that anyone with a CC should have proper training with the pistol they carry. Too many people think they have training by going to the range one time and shooting a box of 50. There needs to be a way to make sure people have training before they are on the way to possibly taking the life of a creature created by Someone higher man. By all means, I do not want the government with their nose in our business. We need a way to police our own. For the record, I am retired Army, own guns, hunt, a hunting course instructor, and .308 Win is better.
Hunting is a sport and a privilege, carrying a gun concealed is neither.
Pingback: Richard Mann: Concealed Carry Logic | The Gun Feed
Pingback: URL
Test