Hacker News Reader

Comment by trill_bill | Hacker News Reader

If you didn't need a license to exercise a constitutional right this shady shit wouldn't exist.

Granting authorities from county to county use different and arbitrary criteria for licensing to concealed carry. Many counties including the one I live in don't authorize permits for law abiding citizens, no matter how well trained, for self defense. I'm a serious competitive shooter (USPSA 3gun), I shoot trap and 5-stand, and I am an avid hunter. I have attended over 100 hours of defensive pistol training, and yet, I cannot qualify for a concealed carry license in my county of residence because the Sheriff will only give them to cronies and political backers. This is what creates the badge factories, which I personally do not support. I'd rather your county of residence have stringent criteria, extensive mandatory training, and frequent re-qualification, where only highly proficient, and highly trained citizens are permitted to carry.

And a comprehensive background check and psychological examination.

There is no constitutional right for the concealed-carry of a gun.

The Constitution doesn't address whether the right to bear arms is either open or concealed carry. The Constitution does not grant this right - it, among others, is considered a natural right, applicable to the free people. It only lists this right, among others, to emphasize that government is not supposed to infringe upon it. We all see how poorly that enumerated philosophy is followed, understood, accepted, or defended.

The Constitution mandates that people have the right to bear arms; it doesn't specify about concealed carry or open carry. Yet I, as a Californian, can do neither. Open carry is illegal in California, and only a small few can get a concealed carry permit (varies by county). It is very clear that Californians' constitutional rights are being "infringed".

It's hard to argue that "bear arms" means something other than "carry a gun".

I don't think open vs. concealed matters in this context. It's probably even easier to "play a cop" with open carry.

Only if you some how believe that carrying a concealed weapon isn't bearing arms.

I think that depends on your view.

There is no constitutional right for the concealed carry of a gun, based on your view of what the second amendment means.

Is there any constitutional right that isn't also regulated with all manner of laws on top of it? Why would the gun one be any different?

I can’t think of another that is completely denied to whole groups of people at the state level.

I can’t think of another where the stakes are so high for even relatively minor unintentional violations.

Right to vote is denied to huge numbers of people who were convicted of a crime and subsequently repaid their debt to society.

I'm a lot more worried about them than people who want to carry guns hidden somewhere in their clothes.

>I'm a lot more worried about them than people who want to carry guns hidden somewhere in their clothes.

Same here, those people tend to be peaceful, law abiding citizens compared to ex-convicts.

You misunderstood, maybe intentionally as a gag. I'm more worried about the constitutional rights being denied ex-cons than I am about people who want to carry guns.

The people who want to carry guns are doing fine, it's the ones whose voting rights have been stripped of them that have been shut out of civic life, and that's definitely more cause for concern than the babies who whine about not having enough guns hidden among their clothes.

That's funny, because the people who clamor on and on, whinging about the people who want to carry guns are even more inclined to keep them from the ex-convicts.

Not me, and not people I know. You do a crime, pay your debts, welcome back to society, rights and all. I also think that the second amendment can be regulated with laws just like all the rest.

No one ever screams that driver's licenses infringe on our freedom of assembly...

If carry licenses worked like driver's licenses, the premise of this article wouldn't even exist. The reason they use this workaround and the reason it hasn't been closed off is that the tycoons could not have their armed security without it.

I am all in on licensing guns like we do cars, with mandatory tests and insurance requirements.

Interesting that - a license is not required to purchase a car, nor is a car required to be registered unless operated on public streets. Even then, there are exceptions.

Insurance is not required in many states. In Virginia, for instance, one may put up a bond in lieu of maintaining insurance. There are no states to my knowledge where insurance is required to merely own a car.

Oh, and the penalty for failing to do any of the above is like $35.

I don't really care about making their licensing regimes exactly the same.

I just want people who love their guns to start paying back the rest of us for the externalities of living in a society drowning in those guns.

My point is that what you suggested above is significantly less onerous than the requirements already in place.

As for insurance - most people who carry firearms regularly actually do have insurance to cover potential legal defense costs. Liability insurance doesn’t make much sense because the potential issues there are criminal, not civil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com