RIC LLEWELLYN: Want a concealed carry weapon permit? Get trained
| Friday, Feb 05 2010 11:31 AM
Last Updated Friday, Feb 05 2010 11:33 AM
Images
Alex Horvath / The Californian Columnist Ric Llewellyn
I'm not your stereotypical conservative when it comes to guns. Yes, I support citizens' rights to have guns in their homes, even "assault weapons." But I also think citizens need to take a sober look at the responsibilities of gun ownership. Gun ownership isn't right for everyone.
I also support a citizen's right to carry a loaded weapon in public. But the responsibility created by carrying a concealed weapon is much more far-reaching than that created by merely having guns in the home. In dealing with the issue it's easy for the authorities to just say, "No guns," rather than work with citizens to embrace the responsibilities of gun ownership.
Assembly member Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, had a bill in the California Assembly that would have removed the ambiguity in the state's concealed carry weapons law as a step toward giving that responsibility back to law-abiding citizens. AB 357 (pretty cool, right?) proposed to strike the "good cause" provision of the State Code concerning the issuance of a concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit and to require the responsible authority to issue a permit if specific qualifications were met.
Kern County has a reputation for accommodating responsible citizens' requests for CCW permits in compliance with the current code. But even in Kern the hazy language of the law can result in inequitable treatment of applicants. For example, the "good cause" threshold may be lower for a woman than a man under the same circumstances. Unfortunately, Knight's bill recently failed to get out of committee.
We need a clear and objective method for dealing with concealed carry weapons permitting. A method that doesn't vary among the counties and municipalities. One that is responsible, reasonable and fair. One that declares the requirements clearly and unambiguously. AB 357 would have been a good start.
I'm talking about carrying concealed weapons in public, which is very different from citizens having guns in their homes. A person in possession of a loaded firearm in public bears a terrible responsibility, which demands that we take gun rights to the next level.
We cannot trust everyone to honestly evaluate her or his own ability to take on that responsibility. Therefore, waiting periods and background checks are good. The purpose of arming citizens, after all, is to secure freedom (see the Second Amendment). So the system for issuing permits must foster a sense of security for the permittee as well as those of us who are aware that our friends and neighbors may be out in public armed.
To further foster that sense of security, anyone who applies for a CCW permit should be required to qualify in concealed carry, close quarters handling and securing a weapon against takeaway, as well as self-defense tactics and self-defense law. And they should be required to requalify to renew. If you can't assure the rest of us that your weapon won't be taken by a bad guy, you shouldn't be walking around with one!
I want to know that out on the street or at the mall, anyone who might be legally carrying a weapon is very well trained. I want to be able to trust armed citizens. I want the bad guys to be outnumbered by composed, temperate and confident men and women who are ready to take action to secure life and liberty for themselves or their fellow citizens if they should be threatened with their lives by those who lack a moral or social conscience.
The flip side is if you take on the responsibility of being an armed citizen, you must acknowledge that you may become a casualty. Confronting an armed person rarely turns out well. So many things can go wrong. That's precisely why comprehensive training should be part of a consistent statewide concealed carry permitting process.
Rather than encouraging citizens to arm themselves, I am advocating the citizen's right to choose to be armed. Assemblyman Knight's bill was a step in the right direction. But I am also a pragmatist who simply wants to live in peace. To ensure my safety and security I prefer to argue, not for regulation or restrictions on carrying firearms, but that armed citizens embrace their obligation to society soberly through comprehensive training.
-- Ric Llewellyn is one of four conservative community columnists whose work appears here every Saturday. These are the opinions of Llewellyn, not necessarily The Californian's. You can send e-mail to him at rllewellyn@bakersfield.com.
Next week: Ralph Bailey.
