The Problem With Concealed Carry Licenses

"A year after he was denied a license to carry a concealed weapon, Exeter resident Dan Garand is taking his case to the state Supreme Court. His hired gun is attorney Penny Dean, a Second Amendment specialist, NRA-certified shooting instructor, hunting safety instructor and graduate of the "Lethal Force Institute. If you can lawfully own a gun, you should be issued a license to carry," said Dean, who hopes to convince the state's highest court that appeals of gun license denials should be heard in superior courts." [link]

Here is my main beef with CCW, CCL, what have you. Of all the states that allow concealed carry only two are doing it correctly (based on the U.S. Constitution). Those would be Alaska and Vermont. In either state if you may "legally" own a firearm then you may automatically carry concealed, no paperwork, now forms, no fees, etc... In other words no infringement on rights. The rest of the states issue their licenses on a "shall issue" basis. This is the loophole part. There is nothing in there that forces whatever entity issues these licenses to issue anybody one, regardless of reason. I know that here in Kentucky you have to get your county sheriff to sign off on an approval for your license. He/she has the choice to either sign and grant your license or not. If they don't like you, your family, the way you look, etc... any reason whatsoever they don't have to issue your license.

Now don't get me wrong it is good that quite a few states are recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves in the best manner available to them. However, they should all look into Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry laws.

Eddie Eagle and Hoplophobia

"Showing that the depths of some individuals' hoplophobia know no bounds, CBS11TV.com (Dallas-Fort Worth) recently ran a story on a mother whose knee-jerk reaction against firearms was so overwhelming that even pictures of firearms in NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program's coloring book, sent her into a tizzy." [link]

No matter how many times I see these types of stories and people that think this way, it never ceases to amaze me.

Quote for the Day

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."