Why is there a need for concealed weapons permits in an "Open Carry" State?

[Merlin III]

Here again, I need help understanding this. Maine is unequivocally an "open carry" State. You can take a handgun almost anywhere with the obvious exceptions.

If you do open carry in crowded places, people will call 911 and the police will be scrambling numerous times to respond to the complaints. While it is clearly the carriers right to do so, in our society the general public and LEO's aren't happy about it. So, what's the solution, or possible solution?

Concealed carry eliminates all those problems. The carrier is protected, the public isn't made uneasy, and LEOs aren't hassled by frivolous 911 calls. So the question arises, why license people who want to CC, make them pay unneeded fees, and go through the indignity of proving they are law abiding citizens?

My main premise here is that you are a law abiding citizen until proven otherwise and should be treated as such. Obviously, if a person is a criminal type, he isn't going to apply for a permit in the first place. So what in reality does CC permitting accomplish? The handgun training is a good thing, but let's be honest, it isn't enough.

I believe Vermont has it right-no permits.

 

[MH52]

And if you go out of state and want to carry (you have no permit and thus no agreement with any other states).

 

[sargedog]

I think it's all about keeping track of who has guns, and to make money for the state.

 

[chiefpropellerhead]

I agree with sargedog. It is all about the revenue generated and keeping the terrorist watch list updated on a regular basis.

 

[Lowjiber]

So the question arises, why license people who want to CC, make them pay unneeded fees, and go through the indignity of proving they are law abiding citizens?

Here's my semi-obscure reasoning...

I agree with your unstated premise that many of the laws seemed to have been created by state legislators who are idiots. Remember that I live in Nevada where the State Assembly is mostly filled with them.

However...

1. We're all aware that the Second Amendment is constantly under attack. Turning CC over to the US Congress is a sure way to, sooner or later, completely ban the Constitutional right to bear arms.

By keeping the issue before the individual states' purview, we prevent an administration such as we have now from eliminating the concept. At present, the only thing (IMHO) keeping Obama in check is the fact that the House is controlled mostly by people who are "gun-friendly". While Obama can appoint anti-gun judges (which he's already done at the Supreme Court and Federal Courts level), he won't be around long enough to meet his stated goal of "working under the radar" to eliminate gun ownership nationwide.

2. "...go(ing) through the indignity of proving they are law abiding citizens?" is a double-edged sword. The vetting process is indeed pretty stupid to folks on forums like this one...we ARE law abiding citizens. However, elimination of the process would undoubtedly create an atmosphere in which low-life, convicted felons, illegal aliens, etc. would legally be armed and more dangerous to society than they are now.

I'll agree that many of the scumbags mentioned above will carry concealed anyway, but I want my LEOs to have a reason to kill them without suffering the left-leaning press from saying that they were "legally carrying" a concealed. To me, having someone prove that they're "law abiding" is a necessity.

 

[cmj0968]

Revenue, lists, and remember that the agencies need the ability to say that they are "doing something" to keep criminals from having weapons. Regardless of our personal feelings, it's a true statement. I have mixed feelings about open carry and see the benefit of both but in the end, I always come back to my right to carry regardless.

 

[Cotillion]

I completely agree with you op. I think if you can buy a gun, you can carry a gun. Maybe just the same background check gets you a ccw badge or something

 

[Merlin III]

They do an FBI check on you when you buy a gun and that should be enough in my book. Maybe a certificate of training also from a certified instructor.

 

[Anubis]

And if you go out of state and want to carry (you have no permit and thus no agreement with any other states).

Or the Vermonter gets a couple of non-resident permits from other states.

 

[rogerw]

For those states like Nebraska that are open carry. most Nebraska citys have some how over ride the state by baning open carry. If you want to be legal and carry you need a conceal carry permit in most nebraska city's. Some city's have tried to ban conceal carry even.

 

[longslide10]

I think it's all about keeping track of who has guns, and to make money for the state.

Yeah it's just another tax we have to pay to keep the bureaucrats happy. I believe the second amendment is all we need to carry a firearm but in this society of paranoid pansy ass liberal snot-nose whiners a firearm exposed means we must be up to no good. One day they'll thank us for bailing them out of a precarious situation----maybe.

 

[Maine CWP Training]

Open carry is easy for a LEO to identify in a confrontation. Therefore the LEO community wanted safeguards for those lawfully concealing a firearm such as training and background checks... I fully understand the Constitutional argument too!

 

[Treo]

And if you go out of state and want to carry (you have no permit and thus no agreement with any other states).

So you get a non-resident permit from somewhere else

 

[Maine CWP Training]

Ayuh! Tis the deal.

 

[FN1910]

There are lots of reasons but I can't say the any of them are correct or make sense. One is that it goes back to the times of being a gentleman meant not hiding your weapon. Only a low class scoundrel would dare conceal his gun. Whether that was true or not and whether it actually made any difference lots of people, primarily the "upper crust" supposedly tried to use it as an excuse. In the minds of many people, especially the OC crowd, 2A applies to open carry and not to CC. There may have been something to this whole line of thought as many states permit OC without any kind of permit but only a few permit CC.

Whether or not this "gentleman" thing actually had anything to do with it I do not know but to me there is nothing in 2A that says anything about OC or CC so both should be treated equally. There was a long discussion about Alabama's laws a while back on one board and I finally figured it out. Although AL law says that neither OC or CC is permitted the state constitution says that carry is permitted. A court case finally decided that since both OC and CC are illegal then one would have to be legal and the judge said that OC was the legal form based on that particular case. Since then OC has been the legal carry although both are still illegal by statute. If the case that led to the ruling had been about CC instead then it is possible that CC would be the standard. It really doesn't matter as the judge said that they couldn't ban both of them so OC is legal by court ruling rather than by legislative action.

 

[maine04619]

The difference is open carry is just that but your not allowed to have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle. Having a ccw gives you not only the ability to carry your pistol loaded in your can but it allowed you to hide it on your person. If you carry concealed then the bg does not know your armed.