I don't feel strongly pro or con about permitless carry. Not because I don't care about the issue, but because I see tradeoffs.
The idea of some famililarization and instruction before carrying in public is rather reasonable, as long as we stay firmly within the framework of a "shall issue" not "may issue" law.
I think shall-issue permit laws with background checks and live-fire requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment (and it is overwhelmingly probable that even pro-gun judges are going to agree). These laws are one of the few genuine examples of state gun regulations that you could really say tend to promote a "well regulated militia," i.e. an arms-bearing public that is peaceable and squared away, while being able to exercise their rights in practice. (Instead of how the "well regulated" phrase is usually abused, as a shorthand for restricting the exercise of the right as much as possible).
I would, though, support keeping a very tight rein on the fee structure for a carry license. Maybe even make means-tested "scholarships" available to help people with lower incomes afford the license and its renewals. The financial-barrier, class discrimination argument against the permit requirement has force.
I don't think permitless carry should be as high a priority as some other reforms to our carry laws, such as amending the state constitutional RKBA or changing the prohibited places statutes so private entities like tenants and event holders on public property cannot ban carrying. If our tax dollars paid for the property, and it's not a genuinely sensitive location (like a jail or something), then companies that choose to hold events on public property should not be able to post "no guns" signs.
The current SDA license requirement provides leverage in arguing for loosening the prohibited-places laws, because we can say, why would you want to ban these people, they have already been vetted. We would sacrifice some of that leverage if we go to permitless carry.
I also would not support permitless carry if the politics of moving a bill mean we have to keep (or even strengthen, as in some states) our insulting duty-to-notify-LEO law. That needs to go. Basically, as between permitless carry with a fair number of restrictions, or shall-issue IF it meant that once you get the license you have extremely few restrictions, I would prefer shall-issue. People with SDAs should be able to carry darn near anywhere a LEO can.
All that said, I get where people are coming from in this thread, and why many think it is an important reform. I have a lot of respect for your position. GTG in particular made a strong bottom-line point above: we already have the examples of several states (including a big one, Arizona) that have had permitless carry for a while now, and they seem to be doing fine. Once our neighbor Kansas has tried no-permit carry for a while, that will be a very important data point too.
Permitless carry wouldn't bother me (except as it might lead to more place restrictions); I'm just not convinced it should be a priority.
The idea of some famililarization and instruction before carrying in public is rather reasonable, as long as we stay firmly within the framework of a "shall issue" not "may issue" law.
I think shall-issue permit laws with background checks and live-fire requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment (and it is overwhelmingly probable that even pro-gun judges are going to agree). These laws are one of the few genuine examples of state gun regulations that you could really say tend to promote a "well regulated militia," i.e. an arms-bearing public that is peaceable and squared away, while being able to exercise their rights in practice. (Instead of how the "well regulated" phrase is usually abused, as a shorthand for restricting the exercise of the right as much as possible).
I would, though, support keeping a very tight rein on the fee structure for a carry license. Maybe even make means-tested "scholarships" available to help people with lower incomes afford the license and its renewals. The financial-barrier, class discrimination argument against the permit requirement has force.
I don't think permitless carry should be as high a priority as some other reforms to our carry laws, such as amending the state constitutional RKBA or changing the prohibited places statutes so private entities like tenants and event holders on public property cannot ban carrying. If our tax dollars paid for the property, and it's not a genuinely sensitive location (like a jail or something), then companies that choose to hold events on public property should not be able to post "no guns" signs.
The current SDA license requirement provides leverage in arguing for loosening the prohibited-places laws, because we can say, why would you want to ban these people, they have already been vetted. We would sacrifice some of that leverage if we go to permitless carry.
I also would not support permitless carry if the politics of moving a bill mean we have to keep (or even strengthen, as in some states) our insulting duty-to-notify-LEO law. That needs to go. Basically, as between permitless carry with a fair number of restrictions, or shall-issue IF it meant that once you get the license you have extremely few restrictions, I would prefer shall-issue. People with SDAs should be able to carry darn near anywhere a LEO can.
All that said, I get where people are coming from in this thread, and why many think it is an important reform. I have a lot of respect for your position. GTG in particular made a strong bottom-line point above: we already have the examples of several states (including a big one, Arizona) that have had permitless carry for a while now, and they seem to be doing fine. Once our neighbor Kansas has tried no-permit carry for a while, that will be a very important data point too.
Permitless carry wouldn't bother me (except as it might lead to more place restrictions); I'm just not convinced it should be a priority.
