Who Me?
Lady Liberty deflects accusations that she opposes free speech, does not support the right to keep and bear arms, is an anarchist, a statist, a rascist, and a satanic. [2am]
I've received emails on this topic ever since I started commenting on stories about Concealed Carry Weapons legislation in the various states. The problem? I'm not a fan of such laws. Saying so has apparently upset some gun rights advocates enough that they don't go on to see what I say with the very next breath, and that is this: We already have a CCW law in every state, and it's called "the Second Amendment."
My point is a relatively simple one. States that pass CCW laws require that applicants jump through a variety of hoops. They must provide all sorts of information about themselves (often including fingerprints). They must undergo background checks. They must take training and pass tests. Then and only then are they given a license that says they can arm themselves. Please don't think that this means I consider training a bad idea. It's the licensing itself I consider wrong at best, and a real danger to freedom.
When we get a permit or a license to do something, by definition that permit can be revoked by the state. It may or may not need cause to do so; it may or may not manufacture that needed cause at a later date. In the interim, those who are licensed now have information about themselves and their firearms neatly and irrevocably stored in a government database which may or may not be misused or hacked. You'll forgive me if I disagree that an unalinable right can ever be "licensed," and for thinking that those who seek a permit for such are the ones who are giving up their rights.
Previous Posts:
Feds Go All Out to Kill Spy Suit
Hydrogen Fuel Systems
Fratricide Returns
Obedience and Authority
Watching the Trees Grow
Hideous Kinky
Giving the President a Pink Slip in New York City
Stephen Colbert Addresses the White House Correspondents Dinner
My Harpo Dream
Absolutist vs. Incrementalist on RKBA