In case you don’t follow the Oregon Legislature, the state’s concealed handgun licensing laws have been in the news this spring. I won’t bore you with those details, but instead I’ll bore you with some general thoughts on the matter:
– First off, I am neither anti-gun nor a gun nut. Guns are just kind of part of the deal of being an American, and I believe responsible, law-abiding people have a right to own them, though not a constitutional right; the Second Amendment has been widely misinterpreted in my opinion.
– I think our approach to concealment/licensing is at best backward. If we’re going to require a license for anything, it ought to be for wearing a gun Hoss Cartwright style while walking around town; that’s going to generate some attention, but if the pistol is concealed, no one is going to be alarmed because no one is going to know.
– What exactly do concealed handgun laws accomplish? I mean, the criminals aren’t going to bother getting licenses, so aren’t we mainly just putting another clerical and financial burden on lawful gun owners?
– If Oregon feels it important to license those who want to carry concealed weapons, then as a matter of public records openness I or anyone else should be able to get the names of those who hold the licenses. Not any other information, just the names. The state is issuing these licenses, I should be able to know to whom. Just like I ought to be able to call the DMV and ask if so-and-so has a driver’s license.
– Lastly, my co-worker Joy Pariante, an Army veteran who served in the Middle East, raised a good point Saturday. She figures everything regarding handgun ownership — safety, licensing, concealment, etc. — ought to be wrapped up at the point of purchase. That is, if you’re cleared to buy one, you should also be cleared to carry it hidden and have proven you know how to use it properly. That makes a lot more sense than the way we currently do things, I think.
3 comments
Trent says:
Apr 16, 2012
I guess I am confused by your post.
The right for individuals to own weapons is not a Constitutional right?
Really? Okay. Then your right to protect your sources as a journalist are null and void. Law enforcement agencies can now search you and your property just because they want to. You no longer have the right to not incriminate yourself.
And, you will now be required to attend a church of the State’s choice.
Since you have no Constitutional right to firearms, you have no other Constitutional rights as afforded by The Bill of Rights either.
Dave says:
Apr 17, 2012
I wanted to say something along the same lines as Trent , but he said it much better than I ever could. This is another time Steve, we will agree to disagree. I believe it is one of the most important Constitutional rights because it allows us to keep inplace all the others .
Steve Lundeberg says:
Apr 17, 2012
OK, Dave and Trent, here’s my take: At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, gun ownership was pretty much a given. A firearm was just another tool a person used all the time, like an ax or saw or a horse; gun ownership wasn’t any kind of big deal, I don’t think, not big enough at least for the Framers to think about specifically protecting an individual’s obvious right to have a gun. I think what they were trying to ensure was states’ right to have militias, the National Guard troops of their day. As always, we can agree to disagree, though I think we are more in agreement here overall than disagreement. btw, the Constitution does not give journalists the right to protect sources; that’s why they get jailed for contempt with some regularity for withholding info about sources. And no right/freedom is absolute: Speech, religion, none of them. As Holmes wrote, free speech doesn’t mean the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Anyway, thanks for reading and responding. An exchange of ideas is part of what makes the free world go round.