Tag Archives: concealed carry gun permits

Concealed Carry: Right or Privilege?

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “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”. Notice it does not limit bearing arms in any manner whatsoever. Here in North Carolina, as in many other states, a person can carry a firearm legally as long as it is visible. Carrying a concealed firearm is a different matter in that it requires a Concealed Carry Permit issued by the local law enforcement authority i.e. the county sheriff. This requirement places North Carolina in the category of “may-issue” states as compared to what is called “constitutional carry” states where carrying a concealed firearm does not require a permit. Currently, there are 25 states that are designated “constitutional carry”. In my opinion, North Carolina needs to join this group. Let’s look at some reason why.

First, as stated above the Second Amendment does not permit the infringement of the right to bear arms (i.e. carry). It does not say anything about limiting carrying concealed. So, therefore, states requiring a permit are, de facto, violating the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the permitting process, allows states to include any requirement that they choose to impose; for example, limiting the type or firearm or the capacity of magazines. Third, how many people do you see carrying a firearm that is not concealed? In my experience, it is very rare to see someone carrying a firearm where it can be clearly observed. Given the increasing crime rates in many cities, this reluctance diminishes the right of the individual to self-protection. Fourth, but not least, how many criminals do you think bother to get a concealed carry permit? So, what we do is impede law abiding citizens from self-protection knowing full well that criminals are under no such impediment. Fifth, if you were a criminal seeking a victim wouldn’t you prefer to assume the person is unarmed than to assume the opposite? It is like the absurdity of announcing a location is a gun free zone which only encourages criminals to select those places to commit their crimes. Sixth, some may argue that the required training to carry concealed is a safety factor for all concerned. This is also absurd, since no such training is required for open carry. Are they saying that carrying a firearm under your shirt, sweater or coat makes it more dangerous than carrying in the open? Nonsense.

If you believe that North Carolina should become a “constitutional carry” state let your elected representatives know. Your safety and that of your loved ones may depend on it.

Waiting For The Court Cases On This New Law To Begin

Posted on by

On June 23rd, The New York Post reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the restrictions New York State had put on concealed carry permits.

The Court ruled:

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is ​specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Well, the New York legislature decided that the Supreme Court decision was unacceptable.

On Saturday, The American Thinker reported:

In an act of breathtaking defiance and spitefulness not seen since Southern states engaged in “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision, the New York State Legislature gave a middle finger to the Supreme Court and voted Friday to effectively nullify the Court’s decision last week in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After an extraordinary session for the explicit purpose of defying the Court, Senate Bill S51001 was rammed through on a party-line vote by the Democratic supermajority, passed the Assembly, and received the signature of Gov. Kathleen Hochul.

Writing for the majority in Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas struck down New York’s century-old requirement that an applicant for a handgun carry permit demonstrate a “special need” if he wanted to carry for self-defense.  New York’s licensing process was entirely discretionary and arbitrary, and in many jurisdictions, licensing officers simply refused to issue permits for self-defense.  This was particularly true in New York City, where applicants were routinely and summarily rejected unless they were politically connected or celebrities — such as Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Don Imus.  In other jurisdictions, licensing officers simply invented acceptable reasons on a whim, often issuing handgun licenses for “hunting and target shooting” only, if at all.  (In one rural upstate county, a former judge who had authority as a licensing officer invented a requirement that he would not allow any permit-holder to have more than five handguns without appearing before him personally and giving a “good reason.”)

In Bruen, Justice Thomas ruled that these arbitrary restrictions were unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee to keep “and bear” arms for self-defense, ordering New York State and New York City to issue concealed carry permits to qualified applicants for that reason.

In response, Gov. Hochul (who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 when she ran for Congress in rural Western New York) vindictively declared that New York would restrict guns to the point where the State would “go back to muskets.”  Hochul called the Legislature back from recess and presented a bill that criminalizes as a felony offense concealed carry in perhaps 98% of the state.

At some point you begin to wonder why some people in our government are so anxious to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Punished For Doing Your Job Well

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the attorneys who argued the concealed carry case before the Supreme Court were forced to retire from their law firm.

The article reports:

The lawyers who won a major Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week got even less than a pat on the back from the white-shoe law firm they work for – they were forced to quit.

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.

“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”

The article concludes:

The decision has implications for at least eight other so-called “may issue” states, where bureaucrats have the final say in whether a citizen merits a permit. In New York, the law was used to render concealed carry handgun permits nearly impossible to obtain.

Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Murphy, also an experienced appellate attorney, were partners in the firm. But they wrote that they were resigned to leaving after being told they can’t take on Second Amendment cases.

“This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client,” they wrote. “What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.”

We are in danger of losing our Republic.

When Potential Victims Are Armed, Crime Goes Down

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article today about the rise in concealed carry gun permits.

The article reports:

On May 22, Breitbart News reported that the demand for concealed carry permits witnessed its greatest surge ever between May 2016 and May 2017. Fox News referenced Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) data showing there were 14.5 million permit holders in May 2016 and approximately 15.7 million in May 2017.

Now the NRA is tweeting data which shows that the bigger picture is not just the one-year surge but a 215 percent jump in concealed carry permits between 2007 and 2015.

…It is interesting to note that the murder rate dropped by 14 percent while concealed carry permits surged. And “the overall violent crime rate” dropped by 21 percent. This is not what the left tells us will happen if concealed carry expands.

This is simply common sense–Grandma is less likely to be mugged if she might be packing!

The article further reports:

On December 4, 2013, Breitbart News reported a Congressional Research Study (CRS) which showed a similar correlation between gun ownership and plummeting murder numbers. Gun ownership climbed from 192 million firearms in 1994 to 310 million firearms in 2009, CRS found that murder rates fell sharply during the same time period. According to the report, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 but fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000. By 2011, the murder rate was 3.2 per 100,000.

Even if you disarmed every law-abiding citizen in America, criminals would still find a way to obtain firearms. At that point you would have armed the criminals and disarmed the victims–not a good idea. I would love to live in a world where guns and other weapons were not necessary at all, but unless human nature undergoes a drastic change, I don’t see that happening. Meanwhile, keep calm and carry.

Reciprocity Gun Rights Restored In Virginia

Posted on by

The Times News in Kingsport, Tennessee, reported today that Virginia will again recognize concealed carry permits from other states, including Tennessee and Kentucky. This action reverses a decision by the Virginia Attorney General which nullified reciprocity agreements with twenty-five states.

The article reports:

On Tuesday the issue brought 9th District Congressman Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, and Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe together in Bristol in a border declaration of defiance to slam Herring’s decision and advocate Virginia live up to its agreements.

When the two House colleagues learned of the agreement, they issued a joint statement praising resolution of the matter.

“Like many of our constituents, we were frustrated by Attorney General Herring‘s confusing and unworkable decision to no longer recognize out of state concealed carry permits. Put simply, we believe your Second Amendment right does not stop at a state line,” Griffith and Roe said.

The statement referred to the pair’s visit to Bristol last week to discuss the effects Herring decision would have “on our constituents who regularly cross state lines — some who do so by simply walking across the street — as well as local law enforcement tasked with carrying out the policy.”

There is little doubt that the decision to nullify reciprocity agreements would have resulted in a lawsuit fairly quickly. As Congressman Griffith stated, “… your Second Amendment right does not stop at a state line.” This was an example of a state Attorney General trying to put in place a law that was clearly unconstitutional.