Are LA CCW laws too cumbersome?

[bloencustoms]

Based on an earlier thread here about the Florida requirements, and my own personal experience with Utah requirements, it seems like the Louisiana permits require way too much information.

Frankly, I think we should go the Alaska route and de-regulate CC entirely. The permit process only affects law abiding citizens. Why burden citizens with all the red tape?

I believe that if you are ok to buy a gun, you are ok to carry it. The 4473 has the right questions on it, and the ncis check does the rest.

For instance, there are situations where a person's CCW could be revoked, but it would not disqualify them from purchasing guns. I would never advocate making a permit revocation a condition for purchase disqualification, to make myself clear.

But in such a situation, where a person has had their permit revoked but is not disqualified from owning a gun, I believe there are no grounds for revocation.

In other words, if you have the right to own it, you should have the right to carry it concealed.

In reading some of the threads in this section, I noticed that several members decided to get the FL permit when they found out how easy it is. They simply did not get LA permits because the process is too involved. It needs to be streamlined.

 

[dawg23]

Have you yet taken any kind of formal handgun training - such as a a defensive pistol class, or even a concealed handgun class ?

 

[bloencustoms]

Yes, I have taken the Utah CCW class.

 

[dawg23]

Frankly, I think we should go the Alaska route and de-regulate CC entirely. The permit process only affects law abiding citizens. Why burden citizens with all the red tape?

I believe that if you are ok to buy a gun, you are ok to carry it. The 4473 has the right questions on it, and the ncis check does the rest................

In other words, if you have the right to own it, you should have the right to carry it concealed.

Don't you think it would be good if people who CCW had training in the laws that specify when they can and cannot use deadly force ? Shouldn't they also be required to demonstrate at least a rudimentary level of proficiency (so you and I don't get shot when Joe Citizen starts start shooting in a public place) ?

Owning and carrying a firearm on your property is one thing. Carrying it in public around me, my wife, my kids and my grandkids is a different situation altogether.

 

[bloencustoms]

Don't you think it would be good if people who CCW had training in the laws that specify when they can and cannot use deadly force ? Shouldn't they also be required to demonstrate at least a rudimentary level of proficiency (so you and I don't get shot when Joe Citizen starts start shooting in a public place) ?

Owning and carrying a firearm on your property is one thing. Carrying it in public around me, my wife, my kids and my grandkids is a different situation altogether.

In an ideal world, yes. I think everyone should have some training and experience with firearms. That said, your average street thug who carries without a permit has zero formal training. I am far more woried about them shooting up a public place than a law abiding citizen.

The fact is, otherwise law abiding citizens were packing way before the shall issue permits became the law of the land. Where are the cases of them "shooting up the place"?

Why are we so quick to distrust our friends and neighbors with the everyday responsibilities of life?

Heck, I have been to the local range many times and watched actual police officers getting firearms instruction. They are no better at handling guns than anyone else, yet we trust them not to accidentally shoot us. I know a lot of people who have never had any formal training, yet I feel a lot more comfortable with them in the next stall at the range than some of these formally trained cops.

Still, people are accidentally shot by police regularly. That doesn't mean we should disarm police, it only illustrates that they are fallible, just like everyone else.

As far as knowledge of the law as it applies to firearms usage, many police are just as ignorant of the law as anyone else. While I'm sure they are better versed in the nuances of the use of deadly force, that doesn't make them intrinsicly more responsible.

For once, let's assume that our neighbors and countrymen are just as intelligent and trustworthy as we are. Let's make it as easy as possible for them to defend themselves when help can be critical minutes away.

Consider the following scenrario:

You and your children, wife and grandparants are in a crowded shopping center (you are for some reason, unarmed). A crook produces a gun and threatens the entire area, herding them into the food court. There is a young woman working at the smoothie counter who has gone unnoticed, yet has a clear shot at the thug's back. You know nothing about this woman other than she is young, and knows how to make blended fruit drinks. Would you feel more afraid that she might accidentally shoot you or your family if she had a gun, or would you feel more secure knowing she might be able to shoot the attacker?

I, for one, would feel much safer around an untrained person with good intentions than anyone with bad intentions, trained or otherwise.

Additionally, people's property these days usually doesn't consist of thousands of acres. If someone has an AD in their home, there is an excellent chance that the bullet will leave confines of their property with plenty enough velocity to kill someone. Just because the gun owner with no formal training who lives a few blocks down from you doesn't carry his gun on his person, it doesn't make you safe from a negligent discharge.

I'll concede that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns. But I believe that they are already "weeded out" by the background check they take when they purchase a gun.

CCW statistics show that permit holders have a drastically lower rate of criminal mischief than the general population. Some might argue that this is because of the stringent reqirements to get a permit, that it deters those who are criminally inclined. Yet the statistics apply in Florida as well, even though permit holders have a much less cumbersome process to go through there. Then there's Alaska, who trusts her citizens to carry concealed with no permit at all. Are Alaskans smarter than us here in Louisiana? Are we less responsible than Alaskans? What makes Alaskans and Floridians so much more trustworthy and intrinsicaly competent with firearms that we should have a much stricter permitting process?

My guess is a distrust of the population by our lawmakers, and those who influence their decisions.

So, in conclusion, I think it would be nice if everyone who wants to carry would voluntarily get some formal training, but I don'tthink formal training should be a requisite for effective self defense.

That requirement is akin to requiring that someone who is physically assaulted by a criminal should just sit there and take a beating because they haven't been to any karate classes.

 

[bloencustoms]

Cumbersome? Could be. But since you obviously live here now, just be freakin' thankful that this isn't Illinois, New Jersey, et. al., and you CAN be granted a permit to carry concealed.

As for your contention that folks were "packing" long before it became illegal to do so without official fiat, and therefore today's citizen should be equally trusted... that doesn't hold water. "Folks" back then were raised differently (properly!). Many "folks" today don't give a rat's ass about anything but themselves. Been hunting on public land lately?

I'm with dawg23 on this one; rudimentary as it is, at least Louisana's set-up makes an effort to ensure that a permittee has at least been exposed to the responsibilities of carrying a firearm. BTW, you're right about the woeful inadequacies of most cops. The difference is that there will always be cops, regardless of how far "they" dumb down the requirements, facilitating the hiring of sub-functional morons. The right to carry can go away with the stroke of a pen.

.

Yes, I am grateful that we can get permits at all, albiet with quite a bit of red tape.

The right to carry apparently did go away with the stroke of a pen when the LA constitution had the bit about regulating concealed carry written in there.

"Back then" was what 10 or 12 years ago? I'm not so sure that's a big enough generation gap to make such a drastic difference in upbringing. What's at issue here is the latent distrust of fellow citizens. Obviously, you seem to be confident that older people who may have different upbringing were able to carry their guns in a responsible fashion. I think that we can trust younger peole to be responsible as well.

I do agree that training is important, and I sincerely wish that everyone who wishes to carry a gun for defense would get some training in safe firearms handling and the legal repercussions of lethal force.

But, I vehemently disagree with the notion that a lack of training should bar an individual from using the best means of self defense available to them. Taking a gun safety course does not somehow render one's life more valuable.

The whole reason for making CCW permits shall-issue was to ensure that people who wanted to protect themselves without running afoul of the law could do so. There were people carrying illegally before the law was passed, and there are probably many people carrying illegally, now, even though permits are available. I don't think that making permits more difficult to obtain vs. other states does anything to make the streets safer. I do think it excludes people on a tight budget, or those few cases where people can own firearms, but not be eligible for a permit.

Here are a couple of examples. You could be convicted of misdemeanor DWI. This does not prevent you from buying a gun, but it does prevent you getting a carry permit for 5 years. While a drunk driver may be demonstrably irresponsible, his life is not worth less than yours or mine.

Another example is a child who went to see a psychiatrist for hyperactivity. 30 years later, they have to track down that doctor (if they're even still kicking) to sign an affidavit in order to get a permit. Tell me that's not cumbersome.

Neither of these cases would exclude a person from owning a gun under the form 4473, but they most certainly do prevent someone from readily obtaining a permit to legally defend themselves (in Louisiana, anyway).

Is it really up to anyone but the person who's life is in danger to decide whether they should use a gun to defend themselves?

Several other states have much less stringent requirements for permits, and they do not have a rash of irresponsible behavior on the part of permitees. Additionally, many of these states charge signifcantly less for their permits as well.

So, while I agree that stricter guidelines for permits might prevent irresponsible use of firearms among permitees, there is little evidence to support this. I think it's a solution for a non-existant problem. I think you could completely deregulate concealed carry, and you would not see a significant increase in crime, or accidental shootings. I believe you might see far more instances of citizens successfully defending themselves, who would otherwise have become victims because they were barred from carrying their legally purchased and possessed firearms by excessively restrictive permit requirements.

 

[dawg23]

In an ideal world, yes. I think everyone should have some training and experience with firearms. That said, your average street thug who carries without a permit has zero formal training. I am far more woried about them shooting up a public place than a law abiding citizen.

So you think just because a gangbanger carries in public, and poses a threat to law abiding citizens, that every incompetent law non-criminal should be allowed to do the same thing?

Why are we so quick to distrust our friends and neighbors with the everyday responsibilities of life?

I have friends and neighbors who have no business carrying a firearm anywhere, much less out in public where I, my wife, my kids and my grandkids might be present.

Heck, I have been to the local range many times and watched actual police officers getting firearms instruction. They are no better at handling guns than anyone else, yet we trust them not to accidentally shoot us. I know a lot of people who have never had any formal training, yet I feel a lot more comfortable with them in the next stall at the range than some of these formally trained cops.

What are your credentials to assess the qualifications of the LEO you saw vs. the non-Leo's you've seen? And how is it relevant that you are more comfortable shooting next to them, since you have clearly stated that you espouse allowing completely untrained people to carry weapons in public ?

Still, people are accidentally shot by police regularly. That doesn't mean we should disarm police, it only illustrates that they are fallible, just like everyone else.

The lack of logic here is puzzling. If you are saying that accidental shootings by LEO's are illustrative of what would occur if a similar number of completely incompetent, untrained non-LEO's were carrying, you are comparing apples to kangaroos.

As far as knowledge of the law as it applies to firearms usage, many police are just as ignorant of the law as anyone else. While I'm sure they are better versed in the nuances of the use of deadly force, that doesn't make them intrinsicly more responsible.

If what you are saying were true (and I see no evidence offered to support your contention), would that justify unleashing thousands of additional untrained, incompetent CCW practitioners loose in public ?

For once, let's assume that our neighbors and countrymen are just as intelligent and trustworthy as we are. Let's make it as easy as possible for them to defend themselves when help can be critical minutes away.

I, for one, would feel much safer around an untrained person with good intentions than anyone with bad intentions, trained or otherwise.

When you have seen as many CCW students as I have, and have listened to the questions/opinions they offer, and have observed their gun handling "skills," you would likely undergo a change of heart. At least most rational people would.

Additionally, people's property these days usually doesn't consist of thousands of acres. If someone has an AD in their home, there is an excellent chance that the bullet will leave confines of their property with plenty enough velocity to kill someone. Just because the gun owner with no formal training who lives a few blocks down from you doesn't carry his gun on his person, it doesn't make you safe from a negligent discharge.

So we should allow this incompetent, negligent person to jeopardize not just his neighbor, but also turn him loose in Wal-Mart or Albertsons?

I'll concede that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns. But I believe that they are already "weeded out" by the background check they take when they purchase a gun.

We're not talking about owning guns. We're talking about CCW in public places. The NICS check does NOTHING to weed out the incompetents.
.
.
.
.

Please don't take this as criticism of you personally, or your skills. I'm sure you are a nice guy, and that you are competent, responsible, mature, and knowledgeable of laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. But don't project your qualifications onto everyone out there just because they happen to be legally qualified to buy a handgun.

Your spiels about the "right" to carry concealed may sound rational to some. Not to me. You have the right to buy a car, or pickup, or 18 wheeler and drive it on your property all you want. But when you decide to pull out onto the highway - where I, my wife, my kids or my grandkids may be killed or maimed if you are incompetent - then a different set of rules come into play.

Using your logic, we should just let the credit check at the time a vehicle is purchased weed out the bad drivers and not worry about issuing drivers licenses. And then, while we're at it, since you've seen a few drunk drivers that didn't cause a wreck, we should allow everybody to drive drunk.

 

[bloencustoms]

So you think just because a gangbanger carries in public, and poses a threat to law abiding citizens, that every incompetent law non-criminal should be allowed to do the same thing?

No, only that I think it's silly to assume that a person is incompetent because they haven't had formal training. I also think that a person's possible incompetence with firearms doesn't mean they have less of a right to defend themselves effectively.


I have friends and neighbors who have no business carrying a firearm anywhere, much less out in public where I, my wife, my kids and my grandkids might be present.

This presents a problem because they still need to be able to defend themselves. If you knew that someone was about to be attacked, would you take their gun away from them because they might miss the bad guy? And on another note, the incomptant neighbor down the street probably loves his family as much as you love yours. Should they be barred the right to carry to make you feel safe?



What are your credentials to assess the qualifications of the LEO you saw vs. the non-Leo's you've seen? And how is it relevant that you are more comfortable shooting next to them, since you have clearly stated that you espouse allowing completely untrained people to carry weapons in public ?

No particular credentials. I have been at the range a few times and saw some LEOs getting instruction. Half their shots weren't even on the paper at 15 feet. My girlfriend has been shooting a total of 5 times and can keep them all in the ten ring at that distance, along with most of my shooting buddies. I'm more comfortable shooting next to them simply because I know them and their personalities, mannerisms, etc.




The lack of logic here is puzzling. If you are saying that accidental shootings by LEO's are illustrative of what would occur if a similar number of completely incompetent, untrained non-LEO's were carrying, you are comparing apples to kangaroos.


I simply meant that as humans, LEO's are just as susceptible to accidents and poor judgement as the next guy. Police are a group of people that are out on the streets armed. CCW permitees are also out on the streets armed. Comparing police officers to permitees is comparing people to people. I find it illogical to assume that just because someone is not formally trained, and is not a police officer, they are automatically incompetent. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it could be construed that way.



If what you are saying were true (and I see no evidence offered to support your contention), would that justify unleashing thousands of additional untrained, incompetent CCW practitioners loose in public ?


No, if you can guarranty their safety from the thousands of gangbangers out there by some other means. Police cannot be everywhere all the time. We can't expect a department to have an officer assigned to every citizen as a personal bodyguard 24 hours a day. So what do we do about all those poor (possibly incompetent, but possibly not) people who need to protect themselves? Do we leave them out in the cold just because they might miss that bad guy due to lack of training?

The fact is, there are already thousands of untrained people carrying illegally. To re-address your first question (and this one), if there are going to be a bunch of incompetent bad guys out there with guns, what's wrong with a bunch of incompetent good guys out there too? I think you are overexaggerating the danger posed by untrained people vs. that of violent criminals.



When you have seen as many CCW students as I have, and have listened to the questions/opinions they offer, and have observed their gun handling "skills," you would likely undergo a change of heart. At least most rational people would.


I'll have to concede that one as a possibility.



So we should allow this incompetent, negligent person to jeopardize not just his neighbor, but also turn him loose in Wal-Mart or Albertsons?


If it means possibly getting him killed because he didn't have the means to defend himself that one fateful day from the carjacker in the Wal-Mart or Albertson's parking lot, then yes, let him carry a gun. Do you really envision people accidentally blowing holes through can's of beans at the grocery store or dropping their guns on the ground and having them go off and shoot a hole throught the shopping cart attendant? All these same arguments were put forth when CCW was first considered, and the state has yet to turn into a free-for-all of irresponsible gun handling.



We're not talking about owning guns. We're talking about CCW in public places. The NICS check does NOTHING to weed out the incompetents.
.
.
.Should it? Should we have to pass a proficiency test to buy a gun? I hope you don't think so. Again, you shouldn't be required to have a black belt in karate before you attempt to fight off an attacker. You might not know what you're doing, but you stand a better chance of staying alive if you don't just lie there and take a beating. Same goes for carrying. We shouldnt require that someone just offer up their life to a criminal bent on murder because we think that they might be incompetent gun handlers. Training is good, but there's just no good argument against self defense for anyone, trained or otherwise.


Please don't take this as criticism of you personally, or your skills. I'm sure you are a nice guy, and that you are competent, responsible, mature, and knowledgeable of laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. But don't project your qualifications onto everyone out there just because they happen to be legally qualified to buy a handgun.

As a matter of fact, I do consider myself a nice guy.
You are correct, I have read a great deal about firearms laws both state and federal, I've completed the requisite CCW course (and even helped the instructor out a bit with the other students. It was an easy class.) I do understand that there are a lot of people out there that don't even know which end of a bullet goes in the chamber first. But I also understand that they do have a need and a right to protect themselves as much as you or I do, despite their ignorance.

Your spiels about the "right" to carry concealed may sound rational to some. Not to me. You have the right to buy a car, or pickup, or 18 wheeler and drive it on your property all you want. But when you decide to pull out onto the highway - where I, my wife, my kids or my grandkids may be killed or maimed if you are incompetent - then a different set of rules come into play.

The car analogy is a fun one. What do you think the numbers look like when you compare car accidents to CCW accidents? We do have a right to bear arms enumerated by the US Constitution. It says nothing about the right to drive cars. Therefore, driving is a privilege. "Bear arms" means what it says, putting conditions on that right infringes it. "shall not be infringed" Still, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional, the law exists and must be obeyed. We are all in danger of incompetent drivers every time we take to the road. We are also in danger of incompetent people with guns as well. This includes CCW permit holders, gangbangers, cops, and anyone else in posession of a gun. But that danger is born out of a need for those people to protect themselves. If police can't guarranty an individual's safety, no matter ow inept they may be, they still need a means to defend themselves. The fact that we equip our police with guns illustrates that guns are the best means of defense for those in harm's way. You don't have to be a cop to be in harm's way. You could be a soccer mom in the Albertsosn's parking lot, and harm can just as easily come find you.

Using your logic, we should just let the credit check at the time a vehicle is purchased weed out the bad drivers and not worry about issuing drivers licenses. And then, while we're at it, since you've seen a few drunk drivers that didn't cause a wreck, we should allow everybody to drive drunk.

This doesn't add up either. We already don't allow people who have proven themselves to be irresponsible gun owners (by committing felony crimes of negligence for example) to even purchase a gun. Yet we allow first time convicted DWI offenders to get a license back eventually. Cars are unquestionably more of a public hazard than guns ever have been, or ever will be.

I don't think there are too many people that would rather be standing in front of a moving car with a passed out drunk at the wheel vs. standing in front of a passed out drunk with a gun tucked in his pants. The fact is, defending your life is far more impotant than getting to grocery store in comfort and convenience. Yet we do allow unqualified people behind the wheel all the time.

By your logic, we should make the drivers license process much more restrictive and require that people undergo a psych evaluation, fingerprinting, and NICS check to get a driver's license. It would certainly make the roads safer for people everywhere. But the fact is, you probably won't die if you can't get a driver's licence. You might die if you can't get a CCW. The next thing along this line of thinking will be requiring permit holders to have proof of CCW insurance on them at all times when carrying.

The world is not a safe place. But we shouldn't be so quick to trade freedom for feelings of security. I worry about my loved ones too, but I really don't worry that some law-abiding guy is going to accidentally shoot them. And I'd like to make it easer for you, me and everybody else to have the means to protect ourselves from the bad guys.

 

[bloencustoms]

I'm not tracking with you here. What did we trade? We didn't have the "right" to carry concealed; now we do, if you can pass muster. Sounds like a net gain, to me.

I'm curious... why all the angst about this? Methinks you have run afoul of one of the "requirements"...

.

Actually, we always had the right to carry concealed.

"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."

It doesnt say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms in plain view". Prohibiting concealed carry IS an infringement of the right to bear arms, no matter how you try to justify it.

The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, we were born with those rights. The Bill of Rights only enumerates them, so that they will not be legislated away. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Congress from ignoring them, in many cases.

That right was legislated away, and only recently restored for people in LA who "pass muster".

And no, I have not "run afoul" of any of the requirements. I have a permit in the works even as I am typing this. I expect it to arrive in the mail in a few weeks.

The "trade" I spoke of is simple. As a people, we have traded the right for everyone to carry concealed for the false sense of security you get knowing that some people who don't meet a predetermined criteria can't get a permit.

We have traded their ability to protect themselves for our sense of well-being. If you're comfortable with that, so be it.

I believe everybody has the same right to the best means of defense availble to them, and I'm willing to trade a whole bunch of "what ifs" for them to be safer. You, apparently are only concerned with the saftey of your own family, with no regard for the rest of the population.

What we don't know for sure is that an untrained person will accidentally kill or injure someone. What we do know for sure is that an untrained person stands a better chance of walking away from an attack on their life if they are armed.

What it does boil down to is simple indeed.

"In a nutshell", CCW is a good thing when it comes to our friends and families, the rest of the people be dammned.

 

[dawg23]

I don't intend to get into urinating contests with new members, and frankly don't have the time to post double digit comments daily. Nor do I need an inflated post count to boost my ego or to bolster my image as an "expert."

I'll simply say that the OP's distortions of my recent comments were disingenuous at best, and were deceitful at worst. And I'll add that the use of high school junior varsity debating tactics lends little to the formulation of a substantive, reasoned argument.

It's clear that while the OP is a nice guy (he tells us he is, and I truly believe that to be the case), he is either awfully immature, or is awfully idealistic. Or both. Perhaps politics would be a better calling than his present vocation, judging by the populist approach he espouses (But hey, it worked for Huey and Earl Long).

"Standing up for the rights of the downtrodden masses" while others are "so selfish as to concern themselves with the safety of loved ones" may play well among the undereducated populace of our state. But in actuality, those who seek to ban all our firearms are no more misguided, and are no more paranoid, than those who think everyone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Good luck with your concealed handgun permit - I'm sorry the State of Louisiana has seen fit to inconvenience you.

 

[bloencustoms]

dawg,

It was never my intention to distort your comments. Indeed, they remain here unaltered in all of your posts. And while I do enjoy a healthy debate, I was never part of any team, varsity or otherwise, nor do I aspire to become a politician.

For the record, I'll bet you're a nice guy too. You obviously care deeply for your family and those close to you. That's an admirable trait, unquestionably. And you're a member of a gun rights forum, so you can't be all bad.

I'd hate to think I am immature, but I will admit to being idealistic. If "populist" is a descriptor for "anti-elitist" then so be it. I'd rather be called a libertarian.

I don't think there are any paranoid delusions driving my posts. It could be a little paranoid to think that allowing people who can legally purchase guns to carry them would create a massive public safety hazard. It hasn't caused a problem in Alaska, and Vermont has never regulated concealed carry.

Perhaps the notion that there is a threat from criminals is overblown. I have lived this long without being carjacked, mugged or murdered. So have most of the people I know.

Perhaps it would be better to only allow people who can show a pressing need for a gun to actually carry one. This was pretty much the way things were in Louisiana until the shall-issue permits became law.

The only problem is that nobody needs to carry a gun until the one day that they find themselves in peril. Since you can't know when or if that day might come, it's best to be prepared for it all the time. So, we now have permits available without having to show a pressing need for them. The state has recognized that the need for protection could arise at any time. It has failed to recognize that it could arise for any person.

Vermont, to my knowledge, has never regulated concealed carry, and Alaska has completely deregulated it. Would you feel unsafe travelling in either of those states because anybody might be packing? If not, then what is it about Alaska and Vermont residents that makes the entire law abiding population uniquely qualified to carry guns?

If you ignore everything else I have written as "high school varsity populist propaganda to bolster a flegling post count on a new forum", fine. But please, consider this...

Where the system has failed is that situations which require serious self defense tools like firearms don't just happen to people who meet Louisiana's criteria for CCW permits. So I ask, what are some solutions?

One solution I proposed was to relax the criteria a little to bring us more in line with some of the other CCW states.

 

[bloencustoms]

Now you'e REALLY lost me. I suppose that is a left-handed way of saying that only well-off persons of stature (who generally avoid trouble via their not going to "trouble spots") are issued CCW licenses? If so, you are WAY out in left field.

.

Take another look...

"Where the system has failed is that situations which require serious self defense tools like firearms don't just happen to people who meet Louisiana's criteria for CCW permits."

Nothing in that statement makes any inferences about any class or economic discrimination.

And to address your earlier post, you're right. I don't know you. I am trying to understand your position in this discussion.

When I said that it appeared that you put the security of you and yours above everyone else, that may not be correct. But in the context of this discussion, it seemed so to me. Perhaps I was wrong.

When you endorsed dawg23's statement that "You have the right to buy a car, or pickup, or 18 wheeler and drive it on your property all you want. But when you decide to pull out onto the highway - where I, my wife, my kids or my grandkids may be killed or maimed if you are incompetent - then a different set of rules come into play.", I took that to mean that you believe a different set of rules apply when your family are part of the equation.

Again, I might be wrong. So in order to better understand, I'll ask you plainly, rather than draw possibly erronous conclusions from your posts.

Do you believe that the lives of one man's family are more precious than that of another man?

Would you sacrifice the security of another family to make yours more secure?

I won't hold it against you if you answer "yes" to either of those questions. I couldn't say with certainty that I would feel any different. But if your answer is "yes", then at least we can entertain the possibility that your opposition to relaxed CCW standards is not in the best interest of ALL law abiding citizens.

To ask it another way, do you believe it is ethical to deny the protection that CCW affords to a stranger's family because they might accidentally harm your own?

Again, it is only human to put your loved ones best interests before those of strangers, so I can't say I'd feel any different. But when we are considering legislation, it should be done with the entire population in mind so that it benefits everyone. Supporting legislation that leaves some people unprotected isn't in the best interest of the state as a whole.

Finally, if anyone can demonstrate that relaxing Louisiana CCW requirements to bring them more in line with some of the other states would actually cause more harm than good, I'll figuratively "eat my hat" and agree that things are fine the way they are. In other words, if there are more instances of irresponsible use than there are of people successfully deterring criminals with their concealed weapons in states with more relaxed requirements, then I would agree that our stricter requirements aren't detrimental. Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.




P.S. Please do not think that I was trying to attack either of you personally. Writing leaves a bit to be desired as a medium for discussion, tone being conspicuously absent.

 

[Manimal]

Honestly...

I think anyone who buys any gun -period- needs to go through some kind of -basic- training at the very least.

Any kind of gun.

Some guy at work, the chicken **** kind of guy that is really squirrelly and scared in life, told me today that he'd never shot any gun...but he was scared of random violence so he wanted to buy one.

^^^Thats trouble right there if you ask me.
He could walk in a store & buy just about any gun then walk out of the store with it & ammo...he doesnt even know how to load a gun, never even held one before.

I'm pro-guns, very pro-guns...I think CCW regulations could and maybe even should be done away with, but I think -people- need to know wtf they are doing before they are allowed to purchase or possess a gun.

It should be free training provided by the state government, and perhaps a symbol added to a license/ID just like an Organ donor has. Have to have an ID to purchase a gun...

 

[Manimal]

recognize the similarities between a constitutionally-protected activity which is the right to bear arms, concealed or otherwise, and a regulated PRIVILEGE granted by the state.
.

^Loosely quoted^

A state/city/community can require, ban, or allow arms ownership. The federal government is required to protect the right for the people to decide, the states are directly represented by the people, ideally...

So I gather, anyway. The Constitution is the friggin man, we need listen to it more often. The states should have the power.

not trying to get into anyones conversation, I havent even read what y'all are talking about...I just saw this post.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

OK, not going into all the tangents that are flying in this thread, just to reply to the original question-

Yes, there are things about the law that are too cumbersome. To see some of the changes Louisiana Carry is trying to get pushed through, click here:

http://louisianacarry.org/changes

 

[bloencustoms]

OK, not going into all the tangents that are flying in this thread, just to reply to the original question-

Yes, there are things about the law that are too cumbersome. To see some of the changes Louisiana Carry is trying to get pushed through, click here:

http://louisianacarry.org/changes

From: http://louisianacarry.org/changes

Problem: Unlike many other States, Louisiana requires several affidavits (separate from the primary permit application) to be notarized by a ex-officio notary before a permit can be issued. These forms may have been a good idea when they were enacted years ago, but time has shown that the need for them may have been overstated. Optimally, the information presented in these documents should be incorporated in the primary CHP application, but at a minimum we need to condense these down to one separate form. Many ex-officio notaries charge around $15.00 for their services, so we are unnecessarily inflating the cost of our permits by as much as $45.00 or more for our residents.

Couldn't have said it better myself. While we're at it, I'd like to add that I don't see how the affidavits "weed out" incompetents or make permitees any more responsible, either. I think they were feel good measures that were thrown in to push the bill through against opposition.

Well, at least some of us can get permits to protect ourselves. Too bad for those who don't have the time or money to go through all the red tape.

LSP972,

I have refrained from name calling, belittling, etc. in an attempt to keep this discussion civil. So far, it has been, for the most part.

Your inability (or refusal) to recognize that laws and regulations are supposed to benefit everyone, is what renders our discussion pointless.

Again, I agree that anyone in their right mind would want to ensure the welfare of their loved ones first and foremost. But when we are crafting laws and regulations that affect everyone, we should remain impartial. That might be the "idealist" in me, but that's the way I understood the process to be.

"All men are created equal"

Nobody likes it when laws are passed to benefit special interest groups at the expense of the whole population. That's corrupt. By making it more difficult or impossible for some people to legally carry their guns, we are only helping part of the population.

The current regulations imply that someone who can legally own a gun, but has not had training, does not have the right (or privelege, if you prefer) to use it in defense of his life, unless it's on his own property. To do so, he would have to either break the law, or carry openly and subject himself to being hassled about it constantly.

Is that fair? I know, life is not fair. But law, by design, is supposed to be fair even when it means that we might have to feel a little uncomfortable.

I know of a few idiots in my neighborhood that I hope never own guns. But I would never, ever support legislation that would take away their right to do just that. The biggest problem with this country and the gradual erosion of our rights is that we keep passing laws that put restrictions on everyone to make us safe from a few idiots.