In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Governor Sununu just signed permitless concealed carry into law. That appears to make NH the fifteenth of the fifty states to allow law- abiding citizens to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public without a permit. Professor John Lott lists eleven states in addition to New Hampshire which have what he calls “‘full” constitutional carry without any notable restrictions.” Tracking roughly from east to west, they are: Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and Alaska. Dr. Lott also points out that there are three states he describes as having “‘limited’ constitutional carry – i.e., with a few restrictions or kinks included.” He lists as such Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana.
“Permitless carry” is probably the most semantically correct descriptor. I realize that “Constitutional Carry” has a ring to it, but I’ve been in enough debates that I try to avoid terms which can be interpreted in multiple ways. “Constitutional” technically means deriving from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is understood all the way back to Civics 101 that Constitutional issues are arbitrated by the Supreme Court of the United States. In SCOTUS’ two landmark cases on individual Second Amendment rights, both Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago, the majority opinions specifically said that the right to carry was still open to regulation at the lower levels of government. Thus, it could be argued that the Constitution itself really doesn’t guarantee the right to carry loaded and concealed in public without a permit.
A term I much prefer is simply Vermont Model. For most of my life and probably yours unless you’re very young, Vermont was the ONLY state that did not require a permit to carry, and merely forbade the practice to those who were convicted felons, adjudicated mentally incompetent, or had malice in their hearts. Perhaps not coincidentally, there have been many years when Vermont had the lowest rate of violent crime of all fifty states.
It is good to see the Vermont Model spreading, with more states expected to get on board. Your take on it is, as always, welcome here.
The Arizona model is a slight improvement over Vermont. Arizona was the second state to go permitless carry. But one can still get a permit for $60 and one gains a lot, reciprocity and background check free firearms purchase being the two biggest.
I have mixed feelings about the “Vermont Model”.
On the one hand, as a matter of political theory, I favor it. The American Idea is that the government is the servant of the People. In other words, the people retain ultimate power and authority.
Generally, this authority would be expressed by means of the power of the ballot box. However, the power of the ballot box must always be backed up by the power of an armed People. Leftists, because they are slaves to their ideology, can never seem to grasp this fact. Yet, it is the absolute truth. I don’t need to list all the many examples, that have occurred in World History, where a democracy was overturned by a military dictatorship. This can only happen when the People are disarmed and helpless against the might of a military dictator. Without an armed population, a nation will ultimately fall under the old rule that “Might makes Right”.
Following up this train of thought, then the 2nd Amendment Right to “keep and bear arms” is essential for any democracy to survive in the long-term. Viewed from this political perspective, the Vermont Model has a lot to recommend it.
However, when practical considerations are figured in, I have some concerns.
Personally, I like the fact that the “Shall Issue” model requires a certain minimum amount of training. Carrying a firearm for defense is a responsible action much like driving an automobile is a responsible action. I feel that anyone doing either needs to have a certain amount of training before accepting this responsibility.
Furthermore, the “Shall Issue” permit model does end up supplying a carry license that can be recognized and accepted by other States.
Certainly, the true Vermont Model (whereby no carry permit is even available) is not good. At the very least, the Vermont Model needs to be supplemented by a “Shall Issue” permit system to support a training industry and to provide permits that can be recognized by other State Governments.
Even under this “Enhanced Vermont Model”, I would like to see something worked into the law to encourage individuals to obtain training before carrying. Perhaps by providing additional liability protections, from wrongful civil suits, to individuals who are involved in self-defense shootings and who can show that they acted responsibly by obtaining adequate firearms training prior to the self-defense incident.
Here in the original home of the Vermont Model, the operative phrase is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
TN_MAN, I have to disagree, especially on the idea that shall issue requires a minimal amount of training, just like driving a car. I have stated it before, but I still believe it to be true. More people have been killed by the first amendment freedoms than would ever be killed by those of the second amendment. In simpler term, words have just as deadly of a consequence as a bullet from a gun does, and there are many examples throughout history of people who have used words to foment hatred and cause millions of deaths. Of course, I am thinking of Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Pol Pot, etc. As to the driving of a car requiring training and a license, the Constitution does not guarantee us the right to drive a car, but it does guarantee us the right to speak freely and to keep and bear arms.
And Montana had it’s bill vetoed yesterday, I believe. Two pro gun bills vetoed by from what I read, a pro gun governor. Lack of training was his issue.
A P.S. Since most states require training of some sort and common sense seems to taking leave of the populace I can see his concern though I may not like it. There are some people with a carry permit that seem to loose it with stress, road rage or shop lifters come to mind.
I thank God ,and Mas and others, for the training I was fortunate to receive. And me for knowing I needed it.
i always respected Jeff Cooper but his statement about “an armed society is a polite society” was bogus wishful thinking. An armed society is a cautious or even paranoid society at best, IMO, but that’s probably how it has been throughout human history with carried weapons. Unarmed societies, though, risk being genocidal societies. Even here in Taxachusetts you can get an LTC if you try hard enough. They just let “Mace” become legal for everyone over 18, an astounding turnabout on anything self protective for the clueless MA legislature. I still have to buy a 20 y.o. Glock if I’m not LEO though.
Everyone should be required to read “Deadly Force” and “Concealed Carry” before carrying a concealed weapon. There is so much more to learn and understand beyond “it’s my right”. Exercising your right just may ruin your life if you do not understand the system that will judge you.
I am fortunate enough to live in a Ca. County that has a shall issue Sheriff.
I sincerely feel for my fellow Californians that aren’t allowed the same. I hope the near future sees Vermont type changes here.
As far as practice or required training gets here is my take. Anything that can affect lives so profoundly as carrying a firearm should have some training involved, as should voting require proper constitutional training, it affects lives and generations and countries.
I seriously doubt that anyone who doesn’t train or practice proficient firearm use does not understand the awesome responsibility of carrying and maybe for my safety should not have a firearm on them in public.
NH has always had the best gun laws in the nation, aside from a couple of things:
1. That pesky $10 for 4 years license to carry any handgun either loaded *and* conceald, or loaded in a vehicle.
2. The fish & game laws against carrying any loaded firearm on an OHRV other than a handgun with an NH R&PL, or any loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a vehicle.
SB-12 took care of the first one, but #2 is still in effect.
But on the other hand, NH is hands-down the best state for age limits (none) and places off limits (one: courthouses).
It seems that nowdays there are half-again as many permitless carry states (12) as there are “discretionary” states (8).
Of course that’s been all over the mainstream news.
While I get your take on the phrase “constitutional carry,” I still believe that to “Keep and Bear” means to own and carry.
My state, South Dakota, has been open carry since the beginning of statehood and a CCW permit is simple to obtain, but “Constitutional carry” is now proceeding through the legislature. Our Republican Governor has promised to veto it but some think his veto can be overridden.
Time will tell I suppose.
I rather dislike the term “Constitutional Carry” for the same reason I dislike the term “our Second Amendment rights.” It makes it sound as if the RKBA is granted to citizens by the government. If that is the case, then it is not a right, but a privilege, and can be revoked at any time, for no reason.
The Bill of Rights (including the 2A) does not grant rights to people. It officially codifies and acknowledges the rights that the people already have.
I have mixed feelings about permitless carry. On the one hand, I believe that, in a free society, the burden of proof is on the government to justify restrictions, not on the citizens to justify freedom of choice. OTOH, I am not thrilled about the prospect of untrained individuals wandering about carrying deadly weapons.
Of course, it’s illegal for criminals, or people who are legally insane or incompetent, to own guns in the first place, much less carry them. But it is not just a question of trigger-happy hotheads, it’s a question of rational, competent people who, lacking training, might not understand that you can’t legally shoot some unarmed shoplifter who is running away.
The shootings of Tamir Rice, Amadou Diallo, and Dillon Taylor all prove that police officers (who, presumably, had “shoot/don’t shoot” training) can make tragic mistakes when they are forced to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. I think it’s reasonable to consider that it could be even worse if there were a lot of armed people on the streets who had no training.
That said, I do worry that mandatory training could be used by anti-gun politicians to get a de facto prohibition on carrying weapons. That is, they could make the qualification course so hard that Chris Kyle, Annie Oakley, Ray Chapman, Ed McGivern, and Wild Bill Hickok could not pass it.
I would be very interested in any statistics comparing states that have training & qualification requirements for CCW to those that do not. Particularly, if states with required training have fewer “bad shootings” (e.g., mistaking a harmless panhandler for a mugger) than those that do not.
The permitting system actually disables good citizens who desire to comply with the law, but can’t afford the financial burden of the permitting process. These citizens must make a difficult choice. Take their handgun with them and risk arrest or leave it at home and take a greater risk of death or serious injury if attacked.
See:
http://www.knoxgunguy.com/2015/06/why-are-carry-permits-bad-idea.html
On the one hand, we want all gun owners to get training, but on the other hand we are afraid of allowing the government to set the training standards.
I suppose if the government made the training standards too tough, we could use peaceful protests of some sort to get that changed. I hope that would be possible. Ideally, the limited government of free citizens should probably only strongly suggest that permit carriers get training. It is stupid to carry a gun without training after all.
Right now a lot of scenarios are going through my head. Either choice, requiring training, or not requiring it, has a down side. I guess, responsible citizens should be trusted with as much freedom as possible. America claims to be a free country, so we should probably err on the side of freedom, not safety, like a nanny-state. If I was the government, I would say to gun owners something like, “We will not require you to get training to own and carry a gun. But you will be held responsible for everything you do with that gun. It is your responsibility to learn gun safety and the gun laws of your state. If you break a law, we will see you in court.”
Human beings have a way of corrupting whatever system is set up. Heck, I would even be in favor of a monarchical government if we could assure that all kings would be good kings. Let’s face it, good people can be trusted with almost everything, bad people can’t be trusted with anything.
Training costs for those financially unable to obtain it on their own at any given time could be paid for them by a trust or some such charitable system put in place via existing organizations such as NRA. Alternately, through a new entity created for this purpose.
Then, when they make more money in the future as a result of having not been killed: nor hassled or robbed by violent criminals; by not having to worry about their safety to a disruptive extent, by being able to take that next job with weird hours in a not-so-nice neighborhood to make ends meet and get through that financially inferior phase of their life, they can make any donation they see fit voluntarily to pay back.
Training may also be self directed and adjusted to the needs of the individual and their own personal circumstance and interests, as the best educations always are.
Folks can take advantage of many free resources… Especially online. Which is sure to develop what may well be THE most important aspect required for survival in this day and age – BS detection and avoidance! The ability to tell what’s real vs nonsense is an amazing one and can carry a person a very long ways by its lonesome. 🙂
Any and all governments on all levels worldwide can and should state what Roger Willco says he’d say in the role of gov’t in his above post (16th comment, 3rd paragraph). Then proceed to stay out of the way of freedom.
Any kind of firearms/carry license is a gross violation of the most basic Human right – The right to live and love life. Banning (The definition of “license” is permission to do a thing that would otherwise be illegal. This means that whatever requires a license is otherwise banned.) carry of the best available self defense equipment that an individual or group may obtain is no different than banning any other piece of safety equipment such as seat belts, fire extinguishers or what have you.
That is to say – Insane, evil and fundamentally disrespectful to lives of any and all Humans deprived thereof while believing wholeheartedly that this equipment may be beneficial to them.
On the other hand, those who do not want anything to do with a fire extinguisher because they figure it’ll just explode and make a fire more disastrous or those that reckon their seat belt will strangle them in a wreck should be free to not utilize these devices, ditto firearms.
So Permitless Carry? Vermont Model? Constitutional carry?
Whatever ya call it, great news!
Glad to read of it here. Truly, a pleasure to learn of this.
Congrats to all residents of these fine states and the State Governments who are showing the world how things should be done! Bravo
Reading all the previous comments I saw that each point I wanted to make was touched upon by one or more of the good folks here. So, I will just briefly add to those I feel important, with my 2 cents.
As a CCW Instructor I get to see people who have never held a handgun before. It worries me considerably that, if the law allowed anyone to carry a handgun, many people would not be able to wield it successfully if required to do so. Buying a piano does not make you a pianist. Intelligent people know that they need some for of instruction if they are going to use a complex (and potentially dangerous) item that they are unfamiliar with operating. More importantly, they should know when it is OK to shoot and when it is not. I believe this is actually more important than marksmanship and “gun-handling” as a wrong choice can land you in jail when you thought you were right to pull the trigger.
In my class I explain that all men/women have a God-given right to use arms to defend themselves, the 2nd Amendment grants the right to use firearms to exercise that right and your CCW permit extends that right to be able to carry a concealed handgun. (I know some above disagree with my “take” but that is my position). Given a “permitless” situation here in Ohio I would change my statement above simply by eliminating the last part.
Regarding government mandated training, I do not like that idea BUT I am very nervous about people handling an item that could easily accidentally harm others. My idea (in a “permitless” State) is to have folks who choose to arm themselves be required to, at least, watch a free video (offered at Motor Vehicle Dept offices or online) outlining the very basic handling of handguns and touching on the “shoot/don’t shoot” aspects of the laws in that State. Intelligent folks would likely choose to get more, in person, training; morons would not but at least it would help some. It is a very touchy subject but for ALL citizens wanting to carry a handgun (concealed or not) I believe that SOME training is the smart thing to do.
I’m trying to think of a way to mandate training, but to have it so the government is not in charge of the training. Maybe in order to get a CCW a person would have to be trained by the NRA. The NRA could give them a permission slip, and say that the person is approved to get a CCW. Of course, the NRA would have to be exempt from lawsuits. If one approved CCW holder committed a crime with a gun, lawyers would try to hold the NRA responsible, and sue them.
If we want to trust freedom, and go with permit-less carry, we are basically trusting parents to raise their children ethically. And we would be holding adults responsible for their own behavior. If criminals were punished publicly, then even criminally-minded individuals would realize a price would have to be paid if they used a gun for a evil purpose.
Imagine if we allowed people to drive cars without having car insurance, BUT, it was understood, that if they were found to be at fault for an accident, they would have to pay for ALL damages out of their own pockets. Such a person would drive very safely, or else they would probably end up losing all of their own money. If their savings couldn’t cover the costs of the accident, they would be in debt until their debt was paid off. If they had no way of making money, they could be enslaved by the victim, until the debt was paid off. Well, in modern times we probably wouldn’t go that far. We probably wouldn’t allow someone to be enslaved to pay off their debt. We would probably only confiscate the belongings of the guilty person.
My point is that, if we trust the people, and go with permit-less carry, then everyone will have to be held responsible for their own actions. Those who break the law will have to have their crimes and punishments made public, so others can learn from their bad example.
Freedom can be scary, but eliminating risk entirely is impossible. Life is inherently dangerous. If we live among responsible citizens, who treat guns responsibly, we will be quite safe. If we live among irresponsible citizens, who are irresponsible with guns, we will be quite unsafe.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as promulgated by the United Nations) states:
ARTICLE 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Unfortunately, the United Nations is, itself, among the worst violators of Article 3 on Planet Earth. The UN is working tirelessly to strip the people of the world of access to self-defense weapons and even goes so far as to declare that there is no individual right of self-defense under international law.
Just how one is expected to support life, liberty and security of person without having the option to resort to self-defense is beyond me. However, with the usual twisted logic of left-wing thinking, many at the UN seem to argue that having arms available actually increases the danger to a human population and that greater security is achieved by pursuing the pipe-dream of universal disarmament. They actually argue that Article 3 is advanced by stripping people of arms and leaving them as helpless victims to crime, exploitation, terrorism and oppressive military dictatorships. Only a Leftist could declare that “Black” is actually “White” in such a fashion!
Needless to say, I do not believe in the pipe-dream. My view is that any belief in universal disarmament is a fantasy of the type that can normally only be achieved by “dropping acid”. Nevertheless, a great many on the left fervently believe in the “Pipe Dream” of the disarmed utopia. As the Book of Proverbs notes: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes”.
So, because I believe that self-defense is a universal human right, I would never oppose the “Vermont Model”. There are many folks who cannot afford top shelf 1911’s with which to defend themselves. They cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars or dozens of hours to attend training courses. They cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars (sometimes required) to secure a carry permit.
Maybe all they can afford is a used Hi-Point C9 9mm handgun from the local pawn shop and a box of Winchester “whitebox” 115 gr. JHP’s from Wal-mart. Even so, when it comes down to it, their right of self-defense is just as valid as mine. I will not be the one to say “sorry – you don’t qualify” just because they cannot afford the best firearms or to pay for training and government license fees. While training is important and very desirable, it cannot be allowed to become such a mandate that it overrides the basic human right of self-defense.
Good one, TN_MAN. I would guess that the UN would argue “Everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person.” They would say the citizens don’t need guns, because they are protected by the government. Then, if a citizen is harmed, he or she will try to sue the government. The citizen will argue that, since he was disarmed, it was the government’s job to protect him. Since he was harmed, the government didn’t do its job. Therefore the government is to be held responsible. Of course the government will exempt itself from lawsuits, saying that while it tries to protect every citizen, it can’t be expected to do that successfully every time.
Isn’t that great? The government gets to have a monopoly on arms and the use of force, then gets to exempt itself from the responsibility to protect those citizens, if it happens to fail at protecting them. I think it was Mel Brooks who said, “Ahhh, it’s good to be the king!”
@ Roger Willco:
I would agree with your observations except in one respect. Your repeated use of the words “citizen” or “citizens”, in your post above, was incorrect.
When the people are stripped of arms (as the Leftists are trying to do around the world including in the UN and USA), then they are no longer “citizens”. They become “subjects” to the all-powerful central government(s). Which is exactly what the Left wants them to be.
Replace “citizen(s)” with “subject(s)” in your above posting and you will be 100% accurate.
I just came back here, and of course, TN_MAN, the government wants us to be subjects. They have already said that the police have no duty to protect the people. I read the comments, and while I understand everyone’s concern that people who are not trained in guns be just allowed to carry them without proper training, overseen by “somebody”, is anyone concerned about the fact that I can go to my local big box store and buy a chainsaw with a blade that will cut my arm off in a jiffy, and with no training what so ever, take it into the woods and start to cut firewood? There is absolutely no difference. They are both dangerous when used improperly, yet safe and useful when you are practiced and skilled in the proper use of them. Whether you have the money to pay for someone to teach you, or you must get free training from someone, the bottom line is, in this country, at some point, we must get over the idea that we are in charge of someone else’s safety, or we see the lawsuits like the one’s where the men use a lawn mower as a hedge trimmer and lose their fingers, or the woman burns herself on hot coffee, and they have to put a warning label on all cups of coffee saying caution hot. Sometimes, freedom means that you have to be willing to let everyone else be free as well. If you are not willing to do that, then you don’t understand the concept of freedom as intended by the founders.
Comments are closed.