Is It Reasonable?

Carry Permits

As many know, I am a strong believer and supporter of the words found in the 2nd Amendment, in particular “Shall Not Be Infringed”. I will concede that these words were written in a different society at a completely different time… but so was the 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th, and so on and so forth.

We consistently hear the anti-gun lobby talk about reasonable restrictions. The issue here is that they don’t have the slightest clue as to how firearms work or what laws are already on the books. In order to have a discussion on what is or isn’t reasonable for any subject, subject matter experts (SME) are required. Without them being involved in the discussion, nothing reasonable can come out of said discussions.

For no other topic do we rely as much on the opinions on non-experts as we do with firearms. Think about it… when was the last time the government sought the opinion of a plumber on if the D.o.D’s budget was sound in logic?

Today I’ll be going over if carry permits are reasonable. If you’re familiar with my other “Is It Reasonable?” posts, you may already have figured out that this might not be a long one.

As we get started let’s go over some of the main arguments we see in favor of carry permits.

  1. “You don’t want criminals carrying guns, do you?”
  2. “Not everybody is responsible enough to carry a gun.”
  3. “People shouldn’t be allowed to carry without taking a course.”

Honestly, I think these are really the only arguments I see made in favor for them outside of the atypical “nObOdY sHuD cArEEE”. So, let’s go ahead and break these arguments down.

1. “You don’t want criminals carrying guns, do you?”

Honestly, this argument is so far out of touch with reality that it hurts my brain, because the argument kills itself in the question with one word. “Criminals.”
A criminal is a person who breaks the law, knowing it’s against the law, and doesn’t care about the repercussions of being caught. If they’re going to carry a gun, they aren’t going to care if they have a carry permit or not. They won’t even care which state they’re in, or if they’re a felon. That said, in today’s age, it’s illegal for felons and other criminals to even own firearms; they still do though.

Here’s a solution to the argument. Instead of requiring law abiding individuals to obtain a permit (which are the only people who do to carry a firearm legally), simply make it illegal for prohibited persons to carry firearms, just like it’s already illegal for them to own them… wait a second… it already is. And they’re still doing it… so how is requiring a permit preventing crime and not just negatively impacting innocent individuals?


2. “Not everyone is responsible enough to carry a gun.”

Yeah, sure. People generally aren’t responsible enough to do a lot of things. They aren’t responsible enough to be an informed voter, but we don’t require a competency test for voting. A lot of people aren’t competent enough to maintain a motor vehicle, but they can still purchase them. To go further, a lot of people are too incompetent to raise children; yet we require no competency testing to become a parent.

Just like with bearing a child, defending oneself is an inalienable right regardless of where they are, or how they go about defending themselves. Whether it’s by fist, knife, or firearm. But the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, one not granted by a representative you voted for, but one granted simply by being.

Every person, regardless of their competency, has the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. With that said, my last thoughts are a quote from one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin.

3. “People shouldn’t be allowed to carry without taking a course.”

This turns the ability to bear arms into a privilege. Many people cannot afford to take a pistol course at the time they feel they need to have some form of protection with them. Whether it’s the 4’9 110lb freshman college girl, or the wheelchair bound 6’2 300lb customer service representative. Should these individuals not be allowed to defend themselves? Why should they automatically lose their ability to carry a self-defense firearm because they don’t have the money, or maybe even the time, to take a scheduled course mandated by the state?

Further more, who exactly would determine the guidelines of said courses? Politicians that can’t even recite what current gun legislation exists? The ones who claim “x” and “y” need to be banned for anecdotal reasons?

Who would administer said courses? The NRA Instructors that tell students only to carry full metal jackets? The guy who thinks pistol mounted optics are idiotic? Who would ensure that the courses are taught properly? Would a lawyer have to be present so individual’s could be properly informed on the laws and regulations surrounding firearms and carrying them?

Above arguments aside, there’s a lot of reasons why carry permits aren’t reasonable. LOTS of reasons.

The initial one we’ll talk about is abuse of power. You have a lot of sheriff’s offices, police departments, etc. that absolutely do not approve carry permits for anyone that isn’t a cop, connected to a cop, or connected to a politician in some way. This turns it into the haves versus the have nots. That isn’t how rights are supposed to work.
To add insult to injury, not all states allow you to go to a friendlier jurisdiction to complete the application for getting your carry permit. Therefore, how far a person can exercise their inalienable rights can be determined by some fat ass sheriff who probably drives home drunk.

Urgency. Urgency is a big argument against carry permits. There is no telling if you’ll ever pick-up a stalker, there’s no telling if Tweedledee McFuckStick is going to try robbing you on your way home. These are things that happen every day and every day we have more and more people being made into victims by street thugs, stalkers, rapists, etc.

Here’s a story for you to expand on this and it’s one a lot of us may be familiar with.

Once upon a time, there was a girl named Ruth. Ruth worked the 2nd shift, she lived 4 blocks away from her job so to save money she just walked there and back every day. One day Ruth realized that she was being followed every other night and felt scared. Ruth decided the next day before work that she wanted to get a snub nose revolver to take with her on her way to work.

Well, unfortunately Ruth didn’t live in a state that respected or cared about her safety. Ruth paid for the gun, passed her background check, but had to wait 3 days to get the gun home. Fortunately, nothing happened to Ruth during those 3 days. When Ruth went to pick-up her gun, she found out she needed permission from the state to carry it on her body. From here, the story ends one of two ways.

Ending A: Ruth decides to carry the gun anyway, the man following her tried to attack her, she shot him dead, and she ended up being charged for murder as well as carrying a firearm illegally because she didn’t have a permit.
Whereas an individual hasn’t been charged with murder (to my knowledge) for shooting someone in self-defense without a permit, an individual has been arrested for defending themselves without a permit before, here’s the most recent story I could recall.

Ending B: Ruth decides to go through the process of getting her carry permit, which can take up 3 months after getting printed, and it can take her local department a month to contact her to get her fingers printed. A week goes by from submitting her application and the man who had been stalking her successfully kidnaps her, never to be seen again. The next day a voicemail is on her phone telling her to come in and get printed.

Aside from the voicemail part, Ending B is similar to what happened to a lady I knew. She didn’t go through a waiting period for her handgun, but she didn’t carry the firearm because she didn’t want to go to jail if she had gotten caught. As far as I know, she’s never been seen or heard from since.

The final big argument I’ll make against them, is that the requirement of a carry permit makes it impossible for you to be able to defend yourself everywhere, as national reciprocity is only granted to law enforcement; cause their lives are evidently more important. As an Indiana resident, I cannot carry into the state of Illinois. If I go to Chicago to see the sights, I cannot carry a firearm; I’m defenseless.

I don’t care who you are, but a right shouldn’t end at the start and end points of imaginary boarders inside of the same nation. We’re either the “United” States, or we’re the Independent Territories.

Previous: Is it reasonable? National Firearms Act

Related Articles


Amazon Store

Proudly sponsored by LOX Hair Wax Co., use the code Cat10 for 10% off your order, and I’ll get 10% for the sale