|
Send to a friend
Print PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
Packing Heat, Part 2
by
Sheldon Richman,
October 2002
As I described last month, Jeffrey Snyders path-breaking article, A Nation
of Cowards (The Public Interest, Fall 1993), transformed guns and gun control from abstract
philosophical and policy issues into a personal moral issue. We cannot
morally or existentially truly delegate our right and responsibility to
look after our own safety. To think we can is to risk our own lives.
The full implications took time to sink in, and for various personal reasons
I did not buy a handgun until 2000. What finally convinced me to take the
plunge, I cannot say. At that point, I was living where people were less
hostile to firearms, and several of my friends had them. When I brought up
the subject, they quickly invited me to the shooting range to sample their
handguns.
It was a life-changing experience. There is something bracing about
controlling all that energy in the palm of your hand. I believe that has a
lot to do with our fascination with guns. Obviously that energy is neutral
with respect to purpose.
In the hands of a bad guy, it can be used to cause unspeakable violence and
death. In the hands of a good guy, it can be used to save innocent life
as it probably is used a couple million times a year, usually without the
triggers being pulled.
But as I fired the guns, I did not think about moral philosophy. I simply
marveled at the achievement: the placing of an awesome amount of energy into
a compact, highly usable form.
I knew I had to own one. I wont go into a long description on how I decided
which gun to buy. I spoke to people who know and who write about guns. I
fired Walthers, Berettas, Sig Sauers, Glocks, Browning High Powers, and
probably a few Ive forgotten. I settled on a Glock 26, a subcompact
9-millimeter semiautomatic. I picked it because its small, light, and
concealable. Ive never regretted the decision. (Friendly debates among gun
enthusiasts over brands and calibers will go on forever. I try to avoid
them.)
I recall the day I entered the gun store to make my purchase. I was a little
nervous, for no good reason. Could the cultural stigma on guns and gun
owners have affected me?
After I made my intentions known to the salesman, I had to undergo the
ordeal of the background check mandated by the federal government, the
so-called instant check.
As a libertarian, deep inside I resented having to fill out a government
form to exercise my natural right to prepare myself for self-defense. Am I a
citizen of the United States? Have I been convicted of a felony? Have I ever
been committed to a mental hospital? Am I a fugitive? (Duh!) Blah, blah,
blah.
I answered all the questions correctly and proudly took my Glock home.
(Before long, I also bought a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, which is an
excellent home-defense weapon, and a Henry .22 lever-action rifle that my
kids can shoot easily. Better that they not wait until they are as old as I
am.)
Concealed-carry laws
I was now a gun owner. But I was not yet legally a gun carrier. Except in
Vermont, Americans are not free to carry their guns without written
permission from the government.
That violates our right to protect ourselves. (Im reluctant to call this
our Second Amendment Right, because the amendment does not grant us a
right it recognizes it. Even if there were no Bill of Rights, we each nevertheless would have the right to keep and bear arms. Gun-rights advocates should be careful when they tell the gun-controllers to repeal the Second Amendment if they dont like it. As Jeffrey Snyder points out, repealing it would change nothing.)
A majority of states since the mid 1980s have passed what are known as
shall issue laws. Previously, states that permitted people to carry
firearms at all did so under stringent conditions.
Total discretion was given to the licensing authorities. This usually meant
that you could not get a permit unless you had what they considered a
convincing reason or you were a friend of someone important.
Consequently, carry permits were scarce. Shall issue laws changed that.
Under a shall issue law, the authority must issue the permit if the
applicant satisfies a set of objective requirements, typically, that he has
not been convicted of a felony, has not been committed to a mental
institution, and the like.
There is no discretion under the strict shall issue principle. But the
principle is not always faithfully enacted.
In the state where I live, Arkansas, one could satisfy all the requirements
and still be denied a permit, because the law requires the state police to
ask the sheriff or police chief in the applicants locality if he objects to
issuance of the permit.
One of those officials could put the kibosh on an application by saying that
although the applicant has never been in trouble with the law, it would be
best if he were not carrying a concealed weapon. Other states may have
similar provisions that introduce discretion into the process.
Nevertheless, in the wake of enactment of shall issue laws,
concealed-carry permits are generally available in those states, although
few people apply for them.
In More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott has demonstrated that when states adopt
such laws, their crime rates drop within a short time by a greater magnitude
than the national drop in crime.
Controlling for other factors, Lott concluded that criminals are more
reluctant to target possibly armed people than almost-certainly unarmed
people. (I tried to keep a straight face while writing that sentence.)
I live in a shall issue state, so I decided to get my permit. I hasten to
add that shall issue laws conflict not only with libertarian principle,
but with objective moral law as well. The state puts us in the position of
either having to comply with an immoral law or risking heavy penalties for
exercising a natural right. I was aware of that. I applied for my permit
with eyes open.
Becoming a gun owner
In the meantime I worked to become proficient with my Glock. I visited a
firing range often and put a lot of rounds through the pistol. My experience
was entirely positive. The people I met at the range were always pleasant.
One evening there was a young family at one of the lanes. In another was a
man instructing two attractive women how to handle firearms. Everyone
exercised the utmost safety, and I felt entirely comfortable. (However,
indoor ranges are tough on the ears, even with protectors.)
Under Arkansas law, to get my permit, I had to sit through a five-hour
lecture on gun safety, the law of self-defense, and the law of weapons. The
lecturer, a lawyer and gun-store owner, was interesting and witty. I enjoyed
the class and learned a lot.
Then came an unpleasant part. The law requires that anyone applying for a
concealed-carry permit be fingerprinted, with the prints sent to the FBI. I
doubly resented this. I was never fingerprinted in my life, and I was
angered at being so now just so I could exercise the most basic natural
right. (My friend Ronn Neff suggests that the state doesnt give permits to
criminals because its unnecessary: their fingerprints are already on file.)
But there was little I could do about it at that stage. So my fingerprints
are on file somewhere. Some days I kick myself for going along with this
intrusion.
The class ended with the applicants going out to a range to demonstrate
minimum proficiency: 30 rounds fired in groups of ten from 7, 14, and 21
feet. Twenty-three hits were needed to pass. I passed and mailed in my
application (along with about $125 another imposition).
The law gives the state police up to three months to process the
application. I assume that criminals, knowing that, grant their victims a
three-month grace period before attacking them. Fortunately, my permit
arrived in the mail in three weeks.
I was now licensed by the state of Arkansas to do what I already had the
right to do: carry a concealed handgun. I took my first walk armed.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., and
editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.
|