# Is getting a carry permit supposed to be *this* easy?



## Swordlady (Aug 27, 2006)

I haven't been to the firing range for a long while (since April!), so I set up a time to go today with one of my friends.  Unfortunately, the range was occupied by qualification tests, so we weren't able to go target shooting (bummer!)  Out of curiousity, I asked about the requirements for carrying a firearm in Pennsylvania.  I asked a while ago, and was positive that it was somewhat involved.  What I heard shocked me.  Apparently, all that is needed is a $19 money order and a background check (which only takes a few minutes).  If the background check is okay, I would then fill out an application and get a photo ID taken.  That's it.  I would then be allowed to carry a firearm in my state.

With the rising number of gun-related crimes, I would think that the lawmakers would make it harder to acquire a gun permit.  I certainly didn't expect it to be this simple.  Then again, it took all of a fifteen minutes for me to purchase a gun (just a .22 caliber Walther for sport shooting) a couple years ago.  A quick background check, and I became a gun owner.  Another $19 dollars, I could've also acquired a license to carry.

The powers-to-be may have wanted to make it easy for law-abiding citizens like myself to "protect" ourselves.  But should it be *this* easy?


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 27, 2006)

Yea that is pretty much it.
Terry


----------



## Kacey (Aug 27, 2006)

Well... I dunno.  I mean, I have my doubts about the ultimate usefulness of permits anyway.  People who expect to fail the background check aren't really likely to attempt to get a permit, and they will still have guns.  I think that this is another instance of the law-abiding having to pay, and the law-breaking avoiding the system set up to make it harder for them to break the law.  On the other hand, some kind of system needs to be in place, but I don't know how to improve the one we've got.

Also, what is the procedure for buying a gun (rather than getting a permit)?  I thought there were laws about not being able to buy a gun immediately.  That may be the other part of the carry permit - but I don't know for sure.  Since I've never carried a gun (except my friend's rifle, but it was unloaded, disassembled, and in a case; I was helping them move), much less fired one, never mind applied for any permits, I really can't say from experience.


----------



## Swordlady (Aug 27, 2006)

State laws for buying and carrying a firearm vary, but it is ridiculously easy in Pennsylvania.  It took all of fifteen minutes for the gun shop to run a background check on me, and _presto_, I was a proud new gunowner.  Not licensed to carry, mind you, but I am still able to take my handgun back and forth from the range.

I imagine that buying a gun in Texas is just as simple.  But as Carol stated in another thread, MUCH more difficult in Massachusetts.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 27, 2006)

Yes, it should be that easy for a law abiding citizen to be able to carry a gun.  The percentage of people who legally carry and commit crimes is incredibly low.  The "bad guys" don't bother getting permits, nor do they buy their firearms legally.  

The right to defend yourself is just as inalienable as the right to free speech or freedom of religion.  As of now, a handgun is about the most efficient portable way to defend yourself.

Here in Indiana, it's even easier.  No qualification shoot at all.  Just get your fingerprints, background check, and you'll have it in the mail in about 10 days.
$10 for the local police/sheriff and another $10 for the state police.  Also, now you can get a lifetime permit, which I'll be doing next month as mine is about to expire.

Jeff


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 27, 2006)

NYS
 - Must be 21
 - 4 photos
 - 4 character references, in same county, non-related
 - Proof of safe handling course completion
 - Application must be notarized
 - Cost is $99
 - Must be fingerprinted
 - More paperwork needed if any criminal history

 Gun registration fees and fingerprinting fees are additional.
http://www.erie.gov/depts/government/clerk/applications_permits_pistol.phtml


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2006)

I believe it should be that easy. 

The technology today should make it simple enough to determine if your right has been revoked due to incidents in your background. Other than that, why should it be difficult.

I believe in New Hampshire, there are no requirements for purchasing firearms. The concealed carry application is submitted at the local police station, and almost always approved. I think there is a small fee to cover the background research.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 27, 2006)

I need to Escape From NY. LOL!


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 27, 2006)

Feel Lucky is so complicated, Bob.

You could live in Chicago where even OWNING a handgun is a crime, and there are no provisions for carrying AT ALL in the state.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 27, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Feel Lucky is so complicated, Bob.
> 
> You could live in Chicago where even OWNING a handgun is a crime, and there are no provisions for carrying AT ALL in the state.


 
Yes, but there are not murders by handguns in Chicago so the rigid laws are having the desired effect of ending murders by firearms in the city. Right?


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 28, 2006)

In Alabama, it's similar.  Go the sheriff's dept, fill out the application form, pay the fee, undergo the background check, and you're approved.  

It's really no different than buying a firearm, since you have to go through the instant background check.  Any instances of a felony, violent misdemeanor, domestic violence, habitual drunkeness charges, or drug charges, and you're denied.  

By the way, in Vermont and Alaska, no permits needed.  If you can lawfully possess a gun, you can carry a lawfully owned firearm.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 28, 2006)

I need to escape. Like right now.


----------



## Swordlady (Aug 28, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> I need to escape. Like right now.



If I remember correctly, doesn't your state have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 28, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Feel Lucky is so complicated, Bob.
> 
> You could live in Chicago where even OWNING a handgun is a crime, and there are no provisions for carrying AT ALL in the state.



*reminds self not to move to Chicago*

How on earth does that jive w/ the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> *reminds self not to move to Chicago*
> 
> How on earth does that jive w/ the 2nd amendment?



Well, ya know, there are a lot of folk (even here on MT) who do not believe that the 2nd amendment means we have the right to bear arms, it means the government has the right to create an armed militia.  Plus there is the whole "We are willing to sacrifice our rights in the name of saftey" crowd. 

The Illinois state constitution grants us that right in a clear fashion as well, but they still choose to ignore it.


----------



## Ping898 (Aug 28, 2006)

I know that in NM, my friends had to do some background check thing, take a class and certify with either each caliber weapon they wanted to be able to carry or just the highest caliber and it covered the lower ones, I can't remember and they had to take a target test shooting with their dominent and non-dominent side from like 9 feet away, and then presto in the mail the permit came....


----------



## bydand (Aug 28, 2006)

Here in Maine you now have to take a handgun course which consists of State concealed carry laws and then a short trip to the firing range.  After that you pay the city clerk and fill out the application which gives the chief of police the OK to get your records (loony-bin, court, criminal).  No problem except it takes a couple of weeks for everything to come in.  Here in the tiny town I live in, the Chief usually just stops by your house to drop off your Concealed carry permit. I think it is $40 for the first 4 years and then $20 or $30  for the following 4 year periods. 

If it is just to carry your handgun in a holster, there is no permit required as long as it is in the open.  As a side note it is the only place I've lived that a bank teller will  not FREAK-OUT if you walk in with a shoulder holster on (I forgot it was on when I stopped by my bank one day. ooops).


----------



## Bigshadow (Aug 28, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> The powers-to-be may have wanted to make it easy for law-abiding citizens like myself to "protect" ourselves.  But should it be *this* easy?


Why should it be difficult for law-abiding citizens?  The background check is the key here.  Of course I believe one should have also passed some sort of gun safety and marksmanship course beforehand.  Other than that, I don't think that it should be "difficult" for law abiding citizens.   

Along the same lines, if you were to go to a major league baseball game, your not going to get through the gates without a ticket, but if you have a ticket, it is quite easy to get in and virtually trouble free.  So why should obtaining a permit be any more difficult than obtaining access to the game.

IMO, the background check is the key.  That is like the ticket check at the entrance.  Only the ones without tickets will have a difficult time.

Just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Of course I believe one should have also passed some sort of gun safety and marksmanship course beforehand. .


 
And if you are unable to pass a gun safety or marksmanship course, is your right to keep and bear arms forfeited? 

Although, I think these are a matter of good personal behavior, I do not think they should be required. 

Legislating responsible behavior has lead to pages and pages of posts on this board and elsewhere, that demonstrate peoples continuing endeavor to make better idiots to foil idiotproof marketing ideas.


----------



## Bigshadow (Aug 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And if you are unable to pass a gun safety or marksmanship course, is your right to keep and bear arms forfeited?


No not at all.  That isn't what I meant.  I mean a class about safe gun handling should be required and proof that you have taken the class, for conceal carry only, not for gun ownership.  The class should include marksmanship skills.   Passing the background test is all that is needed for ownership, IMO.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 28, 2006)

Gun permits are for purchase, not for owning, correct? Or is this state specific? I'm asking because my grandparents passed me down one or two when they died... I was just curious


----------



## Bigshadow (Aug 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Gun permits are for purchase, not for owning, correct? Or is this state specific? I'm asking because my grandparents passed me down one or two when they died... I was just curious


I believe the permits (specifically this thread) are for conceal carry only.  There may be some cities or states that have draconian laws that require permits for ownership, but thankfully I don't live in one.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 28, 2006)

Just a little tidbit of info.  Here in Indiana, the permit if for carry.  You don't have to carry concealed.  For the most part, I'd call you an idiot if you did't though.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Gun permits are for purchase, not for owning, correct? Or is this state specific? I'm asking because my grandparents passed me down one or two when they died... I was just curious


 
Well, I am the last guy who should comment on this, because I have rarely met a gun that I liked. 

But, it would seem to me, that if you were unable to pass the background check to acquire a weapon, inheriting a weapon would also be verboten. At least in principle. 

The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However, there are some instances where residents forfeit this right, such as a prior felony conviction. 

I'm sure someone can point you into the correct direction on this question. 

Mike


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 28, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, doesn't your state have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?


 
It's got the strictest EVERYTHING laws in this country, Jen, that's why I want out.

I was born here, I was raised here, but I sure'n hell ain't gonna die here.


----------



## arnisandyz (Aug 28, 2006)

Not quite that easy in my state, but easy none-the less. In FL, in addition to meeting the other qualifications, you have to take a certified class and fire 1 shot in front of a qualified instructor. You have to get fingerprinted and have passport type photos taken and send it in with your signed certificate and your payment. Takes a couple months.

We also have a waiting period on handguns. Don't remember how long, I think its 3 days. (If you have a License there's no wait).  Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer went in to buy a gun and they told him there was a waiting period. his disappointed reply, "But I'm angry now..."


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 28, 2006)

I've said it before Andy.  You just need to move a little to the right to Indiana.  Heck, we don't even have restrictions on knife blade lengths here!!

Jeff


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> It's got the strictest EVERYTHING laws in this country, Jen, that's why I want out.


 
I dunno, Andy... at least there is a REMOTE possibility of getting a carry licence there... DON'T... I repeat DON'T come to Illinois...


----------



## Radhnoti (Aug 28, 2006)

There shouldn't even BE a process for law abiding citizens.  I think asking us to pay and fill out paperwork...maybe take a test is lunacy.  The criminals won't suffer from any pangs of conscience for not going through the legal process.  Also, the STATISTICS where concealed carry reduces violent crime in every instance should point us and lawmakers in the right direction.  Enforce the laws that punish criminals using guns, ban felons from legally owning guns, post areas where guns can't be carried and just quit assuming everyone is incompetent or has criminal intent!  That's my opinion...


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2006)

Radhnoti said:
			
		

> There shouldn't even BE a process for law abiding citizens. I think *asking us to pay and fill out paperwork*...maybe take a test is lunacy. The criminals won't suffer from any pangs of conscience for not going through the legal process. Also, the STATISTICS where concealed carry reduces violent crime in every instance should point us and lawmakers in the right direction. Enforce the laws that punish criminals using guns, *ban felons from legally owning guns*, post areas where guns can't be carried and just quit assuming everyone is incompetent or has criminal intent! That's my opinion...


 
How do you suggest the State enforce a ban on felons from legally owning a firearm, without asking those expressing a desire to purchase a firearm to demonstrate they do not fall into that excluded group?


----------



## Carol (Aug 28, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, doesn't your state have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?


 
Ayup. That it does.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno, Andy... at least there is a REMOTE possibility of getting a carry licence there... DON'T... I repeat DON'T come to Illinois...


 
I know. Only took me 4 YEARS and instructor creds to get mine, and the carry provision could be taken away at a whim if the next chief desired.

Been to Chicago before.

A nice place to visit, but I  wouldn't want to die there.


----------



## Radhnoti (Aug 30, 2006)

michealedward, sorry for my lack of clarity.  The paperwork I was referring to was that which I had to fill out to legally carry a concealed weapon.  I wasn't referring to the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm.  The focus of my rant was all the hoops people who want to follow the law AND carry a firearm concealed have to jump through.  It just seems like potential victims, who obey the law, end up with the real burden, if they want to defend themselves, as things stand now.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 30, 2006)

Radhnoti said:
			
		

> It just seems like potential victims, who obey the law, end up with the real burden, if they want to defend themselves, as things stand now.



This is, disturbingly, true in many areas, including this one.  Punitive laws have a history of punishing those who follow the law, and missing those who are willing to break it.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> This is, disturbingly, true in many areas, including this one. Punitive laws have a history of punishing those who follow the law, and missing those who are willing to break it.


 
Is there an alternative?


----------



## Kacey (Aug 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there an alternative?



Well, enforcing the laws that already exist, instead of passing new laws that are more restrictive than the ones not being enforced, seems like a good place to start... but that doesn't seem to be very effective of late.

This is an issue that goes well beyond the issue that started this thread, so I'm not going to say much - but it does seem like carry laws, along with many other categories of law, have a much greater negative effect on the law-abiding than on the law-breaking, and that the response of law-makers is often to pass more laws, rather than to enforce the laws that already exist.  A prime example of that in today's world would be restrictions on what can be placed in carry-on luggage.  As a law-abiding person, I have to pay for the choices of people who are not law-abiding - and somehow we, as a society, need to come up with a proactive, rather than a reactive response to such issues.


----------



## Aikironin (Aug 31, 2006)

"As a law-abiding person, I have to pay for the choices of people who are not law-abiding - and somehow we, as a society, need to come up with a proactive, rather than a reactive response to such issues."

You do more than just 'pay' for choices of law abiding, somewhat tangential, but we as a society 'pay' for Smoker's health coverage, when we don't smoke, we pay for Drunk driver accidents, when we don't drink, so on and so on.  Firearms is another issue of singular punishment for collective reward.  I will punish or restrict the law abiding citizen who has to go through (varies by state) more legal headaches and requirements to exercise his/her 2nd amendment right, than the criminal who by very definition will not bother to abide by.  So to prevent that criminal from breaking the current laws, we as a society create stricter laws for him/her to ignore.  This to me is akin to putting an assault victim in jail to protect them from further assaults.  The ongoing debate regarding firearms or illicit small arms.  Is a classic example of emotion vs. logic.  And sadly media and culture side on emotion.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2006)

Aikironin said:
			
		

> "As a law-abiding person, I have to pay for the choices of people who are not law-abiding - and somehow we, as a society, need to come up with a proactive, rather than a reactive response to such issues."
> 
> You do more than just 'pay' for choices of law abiding, somewhat tangential, but we as a society 'pay' for Smoker's health coverage, when we don't smoke, we pay for Drunk driver accidents, when we don't drink, so on and so on. Firearms is another issue of singular punishment for collective reward. I will punish or restrict the law abiding citizen who has to go through (varies by state) more legal headaches and requirements to exercise his/her 2nd amendment right, than the criminal who by very definition will not bother to abide by. So to prevent that criminal from breaking the current laws, we as a society create stricter laws for him/her to ignore. This to me is akin to putting an assault victim in jail to protect them from further assaults. The ongoing debate regarding firearms or illicit small arms. Is a classic example of emotion vs. logic. And sadly media and culture side on emotion.


 
Yes, you have defined a problem,  (I don't know that I would agree with this definition, incidently), but what is a solution? It sounds like these arguments are for the abolition of government. What, then, is the function of government?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, you have defined a problem,  (I don't know that I would agree with this definition, incidently), but what is a solution? It sounds like these arguments are for the abolition of government. What, then, is the function of government?


To protect it's citizens rights from being infringed would be the nice and concise answer to that question.  Not that it'll revert to that.

Jeff


----------



## Radhnoti (Aug 31, 2006)

"That government is best that governs least." - Thomas Paine

You don't have to completely get rid of government, just keep it from becoming a "nanny state".  Aikironin stated it better than I, the laws outlawing concealed carry don't affect criminals.  Making more laws will NOT improve the situation.  The best thing (rationally, and even statistically when you look at drops in crime rates as concealed carry increases in specific states) would be for the U.S. government to drop the laws that end up hurting the law abiding citizens.


----------



## Aikironin (Aug 31, 2006)

Well Govt's responsibility is not to provide for us the citizenry an absolution of personal responsibilty and/or accountability for our actions.  We as Budoka are constantly trained in this realm of thought, as not only what is "right" but is "right to do".  Therein lies the difference, merely because I have the 'right' to do something, does not necessarily mean it is 'right' to do that same thing.  The overly litigious society that we currently live in has drifted far from this notion, where we collectively assume that if a child got obese from being fed McDonald's every day, clearly it is McD's fault and not merely a lifestyle choice, and a poor one at that.  Here in NYC they actually want to rezone areas, as McDonald's and other Fast foods are "targeting" lower income neigborhoods, and this clearly is evil exploitation!  That Damn red haired Clown!  Freedom of choice is having not only the freedom to choose, but hopefully to choose wisely.  This has become a lost notion.  I.e. if I want to use my freedom of speech to burn a flag, so be it, it is somewhat protected as a citizen, but If  I get stomped like a Narc at a biker rally for doing so.  Well...I should have known better.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 31, 2006)

Speaking of No Concealed Carry in Illinois... I just saw this on the website for my local gun shop/range.




> Utah Permit for Concealed Carry Class!
> is now holding these classes so you can obtain your permit for Utah, which even non-residents can get and it still covers 28 states.
> Those include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
> There is no range session required for the Utah permit, but is for the optional Florida permit also available.  You simply must be 21 older.  Completing this class with entitle you to a application which is signed off by the instructor, where you must send it in to the state of Utah with a processing fee, and await to pass a background check and processing time.


 
So I guess its not so difficult to get in other places either, Swordlady.  Even tho I cant carry here... I might just go take this class considering how often I am in Indiana and Ohio.


----------



## tempus (Sep 2, 2006)

I will not say where I am in NY, but in the city I live in there is a town and a village.  The judge in one will give you a conceal carry permit, while the judge in the other will not since she does not believe people should have them.  Figures I live in the one that will not give them.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

tempus said:
			
		

> I will not say where I am in NY, but in the city I live in there is a town and a village. The judge in one will give you a conceal carry permit, while the judge in the other will not since she does not believe people should have them. Figures I live in the one that will not give them.


 
Press your legislator to begin impeachment hearings.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Press your legislator to begin impeachment hearings.


I would agree - or at least communicate with the judiciary above this judge.  Judges are not above the law, nor can they choose to ignore laws because they disagree with them.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 2, 2006)

tempus said:
			
		

> I will not say where I am in NY, but in the city I live in there is a town and a village.  The judge in one will give you a conceal carry permit, while the judge in the other will not since she does not believe people should have them.  Figures I live in the one that will not give them.


I sure love living in a "shall issue" state.

Jeff


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 2, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> I sure love living in a "shall issue" state.
> 
> Jeff


Agreed!  I just wish everyone would follow the example of Alaska and Vermont.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 2, 2006)

That would be very nice.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 4, 2006)

Swordlady said:


> I haven't been to the firing range for a long while (since April!), so I set up a time to go today with one of my friends. Unfortunately, the range was occupied by qualification tests, so we weren't able to go target shooting (bummer!) Out of curiousity, I asked about the requirements for carrying a firearm in Pennsylvania. I asked a while ago, and was positive that it was somewhat involved. What I heard shocked me. Apparently, all that is needed is a $19 money order and a background check (which only takes a few minutes). If the background check is okay, I would then fill out an application and get a photo ID taken. That's it. I would then be allowed to carry a firearm in my state.
> 
> With the rising number of gun-related crimes, I would think that the lawmakers would make it harder to acquire a gun permit. I certainly didn't expect it to be this simple. Then again, it took all of a fifteen minutes for me to purchase a gun (just a .22 caliber Walther for sport shooting) a couple years ago. A quick background check, and I became a gun owner. Another $19 dollars, I could've also acquired a license to carry.
> 
> The powers-to-be may have wanted to make it easy for law-abiding citizens like myself to "protect" ourselves. But should it be *this* easy?


 
Without reading the entire thread and only your post thusfar, I will say that yes, it is supposed to be that easy or even easier.

The right to own and carry in our society (where the only thing to effectively equalize the armed criminal is a firearm) is the equivalent to the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense is an inalienable right, and therefore shouldn't be attempted to be taken by the government.

Because of this, CPL or CCW courses should only encompass minimum safety requirements, not requirements of certain skill like a qualification.
The idea that these courses should be required, however, is debatable. There is a school of thought that makes a sound arguement that it should be up to the individual to be personally responsible to get the training and education, and the law should hold them to the legal standard but the government should not require a special course to obtain a permit. I am not necessarily in agreement with that position, but I don't necessarily disagree either.

BTW...I am assuming also that in PENN. you have to show a certificate of a completed CPL/CCW course for the concealed carry license, not just pay money and here you go. If not, then I have never heard of anything like that, and I am wondering if your not mistaken. ???


----------

