What is the Purpose of the Concealment Tax?

[J.T]

Why should someone who has the right to keep and bear arms need special permission to maintain the means to defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones without advertising what they are carrying to the world? There are many reasons for concealed carry by lawful citizens, from the image an open weapon can project (especially for those with no desire to project a 'tough guy' image unnecessarily) to simple fashion (if a woman is wearing a cocktail dress, open carry is not only not feasible, but would also ruin both the look of the address and, potentially, the mood of the setting in which she is wearing it) to the simple fact that if a man knows where a woman's weapon is when attacking her, he can go immediately for the weapon from the outset, making it harder for her to effectively defend herself.

I do not see that those who are inclined toward armed robbery or other crimes are likely to obey the law regarding concealment of a weapon. If anything, using the law to discourage concealed carry (through the charging of a fee to acquire the license, effectively taxing concealment of one's weapon), and with it the carrying of arms by lawful citizens (especially women) in general, makes criminals more assured that if a weapon is not visible, it's likely not present, and making them more confident when carrying out criminal acts with their weapon.

What is the reasoning behind this tax on lawful citizens who wish to carry a means of defense without the stigma, awkwardness, image, or simple inconveniences of open carry? The only reasoning I can see is that those who push for CCP laws wish to discourage carry by women who wish to dress up for a date or those who wish to maintain the means of self-defense without advertising the fact or projecting a different image into the world (eg: a man in a business suit in a formal setting who does not wish the open presence of the firearm to become potential distracting from the matter at hand or unduly influence the mood or setting). If there is any reasoning behind these laws other than the desire to discourage the carrying of weapons by lawful citizens in general, please, explain it to me.

[ConHog]

Why should someone who has the right to keep and bear arms need special permission to maintain the means to defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones without advertising what they are carrying to the world? There are many reasons for concealed carry by lawful citizens, from the image an open weapon can project (especially for those with no desire to project a 'tough guy' image unnecessarily) to simple fashion (if a woman is wearing a cocktail dress, open carry is not only not feasible, but would also ruin both the look of the address and, potentially, the mood of the setting in which she is wearing it) to the simple fact that if a man knows where a woman's weapon is when attacking her, he can go immediately for the weapon from the outset, making it harder for her to effectively defend herself.

I do not see that those who are inclined toward armed robbery or other crimes are likely to obey the law regarding concealment of a weapon. If anything, using the law to discourage concealed carry (through the charging of a fee to acquire the license, effectively taxing concealment of one's weapon), and with it the carrying of arms by lawful citizens (especially women) in general, makes criminals more assured that if a weapon is not visible, it's likely not present, and making them more confident when carrying out criminal acts with their weapon.

What is the reasoning behind this tax on lawful citizens who wish to carry a means of defense without the stigma, awkwardness, image, or simple inconveniences of open carry? The only reasoning I can see is that those who push for CCP laws wish to discourage carry by women who wish to dress up for a date or those who wish to maintain the means of self-defense without advertising the fact or projecting a different image into the world (eg: a man in a business suit in a formal setting who does not wish the open presence of the firearm to become potential distracting from the matter at hand or unduly influence the mood or setting). If there is any reasoning behind these laws other than the desire to discourage the carrying of weapons by lawful citizens in general, please, explain it to me.

What's the purpose of a vehicle registration tax? Nothing except a greedy government seeing another way to collect revenue.

[logroller]

Why should someone who has the right to keep and bear arms need special permission to maintain the means to defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones without advertising what they are carrying to the world? There are many reasons for concealed carry by lawful citizens, from the image an open weapon can project (especially for those with no desire to project a 'tough guy' image unnecessarily) to simple fashion (if a woman is wearing a cocktail dress, open carry is not only not feasible, but would also ruin both the look of the address and, potentially, the mood of the setting in which she is wearing it) to the simple fact that if a man knows where a woman's weapon is when attacking her, he can go immediately for the weapon from the outset, making it harder for her to effectively defend herself.

I do not see that those who are inclined toward armed robbery or other crimes are likely to obey the law regarding concealment of a weapon. If anything, using the law to discourage concealed carry (through the charging of a fee to acquire the license, effectively taxing concealment of one's weapon), and with it the carrying of arms by lawful citizens (especially women) in general, makes criminals more assured that if a weapon is not visible, it's likely not present, and making them more confident when carrying out criminal acts with their weapon.

What is the reasoning behind this tax on lawful citizens who wish to carry a means of defense without the stigma, awkwardness, image, or simple inconveniences of open carry? The only reasoning I can see is that those who push for CCP laws wish to discourage carry by women who wish to dress up for a date or those who wish to maintain the means of self-defense without advertising the fact or projecting a different image into the world (eg: a man in a business suit in a formal setting who does not wish the open presence of the firearm to become potential distracting from the matter at hand or unduly influence the mood or setting). If there is any reasoning behind these laws other than the desire to discourage the carrying of weapons by lawful citizens in general, please, explain it to me.

The fee is to cover the costs of administrative oversight (and public safety), which designates a person has been properly trained in the safe use of firearms and understands the rules of engagement--helping to ensure a well regulated militia. A small percentage of the population carry, so absorbing the costs through a more general tax is forgone in favor of an individual fee. The reasoning beyond (women, attire) is speculative.

[Noir]

Seems well bizarre to me. 'You have the right if you have the money' =/

[J.T]

The fee is to cover the costs of administrative oversight
What oversight? You first have to justify the need for her to have special permission to carry concealed before you can argue for the tax to pay for it.


(and public safety)
How does a woman not advertising that she can defend herself endanger anyone? If anything, it's safer, as the criminal can't simply walk up behind and and try to take her gun (I'd be willing to bet many open carriers do not have the same weapon retention training and skills we expect of police).


, which designates a person has been properly trained in the safe use of firearms and understands the rules of engagement--helping to ensure a well regulated militia.
uh-huh, that still doesn't answer why she needs special permission to have her clothing covering the weapon when her right to carry the weapon is already established.


A small percentage of the population carry, so absorbing the costs through a more general tax

What cost? You still haven't said why we should demand they get this special piece of paper in the first place. Ergo, there are zero costs to discuss. You have to first justify to program before you can argue how to pay for it.

[ConHog]

What oversight? You first have to justify the need for her to have special permission to carry concealed before you can argue for the tax to pay for it.
How does a woman not advertising that she can defend herself endanger anyone? If anything, it's safer, as the criminal can't simply walk up behind and and try to take her gun (I'd be willing to bet many open carriers do not have the same weapon retention training and skills we expect of police).

uh-huh, that still doesn't answer why she needs special permission to have her clothing covering the weapon when her right to carry the weapon is already established.


What cost? You still haven't said why we should demand they get this special piece of paper in the first place. Ergo, there are zero costs to discuss. You have to first justify to program before you can argue how to pay for it.

Why does the state make soda vendors buy a tag for all of their soda machines? Because they can LOL. It's all about revenue.

[Trigg]

seems to me that a conceal to carry fee/tax helps the gov. keep track of who has guns in a state that doesn't require it's citizens to register their weapons.

[J.T]

seems to me that a conceal to carry fee/tax helps the gov. keep track of who has guns in a state that doesn't require it's citizens to register their weapons.

And why, exactly, does the government -n-e-e-d- want to know who among the citizenry exercises their second amendment rights?

If I were the paranoid type, I might question their motives

[Trigg]

And why, exactly, does the government -n-e-e-d- want to know who among the citizenry exercises their second amendment rights?

If I were the paranoid type, I might question their motives

I don't think they need to know who owns weapons and personally I would never tell them.

If I were the paranoid type I'd tend to think they want to know, so they'd know who to take them away from when/if the shit hits the fan.

[logroller]

What oversight? You first have to justify the need for her to have special permission to carry concealed before you can argue for the tax to pay for it.
How does a woman not advertising that she can defend herself endanger anyone? If anything, it's safer, as the criminal can't simply walk up behind and and try to take her gun (I'd be willing to bet many open carriers do not have the same weapon retention training and skills we expect of police).

uh-huh, that still doesn't answer why she needs special permission to have her clothing covering the weapon when her right to carry the weapon is already established.


What cost? You still haven't said why we should demand they get this special piece of paper in the first place. Ergo, there are zero costs to discuss. You have to first justify to program before you can argue how to pay for it.

Perhaps you should have rephrased the OP-- why are there concealed weapon's laws, not why they issue permits for it. If she wants to carry, she can; I have. If an officer finds reason to search her, and she's carying w/o; she can make an argument to the court and, depending on the jury pool, a jury nullification would well be justified. However, that's a bit too much to gamble on one's right to bear arms; as a guilty verdict would most likely result in one's 2nd amendment right being revoked.

As to why those laws exist, there isn't a majority of our population who possess firearms; 3 in 10 according to gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)-- Accepting that number most likely is larger, there's an even smaller percentage who are trained in their proper use and handling, so the mere possession of gun doesn't automatically satisfy the 2nd Amendment's well-regulated militia clause. Admittedly I find this an abhorrent state of affairs, dismissive of a free-society, and wish ALL Americans were REQUIRED to partake in firearms training similar to Switzerland, negating the need for this nanny-state law.

[ConHog]

Perhaps you should have rephrased the OP-- why are there concealed weapon's laws, not why they issue permits for it. If she wants to carry, she can; I have. If an officer finds reason to search her, and she's carying w/o; she can make an argument to the court and, depending on the jury pool, a jury nullification would well be justified. However, that's a bit too much to gamble on one's right to bear arms; as a guilty verdict would most likely result in one's 2nd amendment right being revoked.

As to why those laws exist, there isn't a majority of our population who possess firearms; 3 in 10 according to gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)-- Accepting that number most likely is larger, there's an even smaller percentage who are trained in their proper use and handling, so the mere possession of gun doesn't automatically satisfy the 2nd Amendment's well-regulated militia clause. Admittedly I find this an abhorrent state of affairs, dismissive of a free-society, and wish ALL Americans were REQUIRED to partake in firearms training similar to Switzerland, negating the need for this nanny-state law.


That is an interesting concept . Require all citizens to take firearms training and then only disallow those who we as a society deem should surrender their 2nd Amendment rights from carrying, rather than requiring everyone else to get a piece of paper saying that they can carry.

[fj1200]

That is an interesting concept . Require all citizens to take firearms training and then only disallow those who we as a society deem should surrender their 2nd Amendment rights from carrying, rather than requiring everyone else to get a piece of paper saying that they can carry.

Bad idea. Provide proper training to all and then deny rights to some based on what criteria? If it's purely subjective then you've just violated due process. Gun ownership IMO should be a positive action.

[ConHog]

Bad idea. Provide proper training to all and then deny rights to some based on what criteria? If it's purely subjective then you've just violated due process. Gun ownership IMO should be a positive action.

I was thinking primarily of convicted felons when I wrote that.

[fj1200]

I was thinking primarily of convicted felons when I wrote that.

:salute:

[ConHog]

:salute:

So you disagree with disallowing convicted felons from owning firearms?

[fj1200]

So you disagree with disallowing convicted felons from owning firearms?

No, you didn't clarify and I was thanking you for your elaboration.

[logroller]

I was thinking-- what are rights worth if you don't practice them? Voting, for example, is by definition a requirement to a democracy- yet voter turnout is dismal; what if there was law which said if one doesn't vote, their rights to social benefits are revoked? Would it be Constitutionally legal?

[ConHog]

No, you didn't clarify and I was thanking you for your elaboration.

Fair enough, I wasn't clear on what you were saying either.

[ConHog]

I was thinking-- what are rights worth if you don't practice them? Voting, for example, is by definition a requirement to a democracy- yet voter turnout is dismal; what if there was law which said if one doesn't vote, their rights to social benefits are revoked? Would it be Constitutionally legal?

Interestingly enough voting is not a right guaranteed to you, or anyone else for that matter, by the COTUS.

[logroller]

Interestingly enough voting is not a right guaranteed to you, or anyone else for that matter, by the COTUS.

Not sure how much consideration you gave before you posted, as "the right to vote" is mentioned in several Constitutional Amendments; specifically the 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

[ConHog]

Not sure how much consideration you gave before you posted, as "the right to vote" is mentioned in several Constitutional Amendments; specifically the 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

Apparently none. :laugh2: Guess I just lost my mind last night.


What I had meant to say was that it was a not a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[J.T]

Apparently none. :laugh2: Guess I just lost my mind last night.


What I had meant to say was that it was a not a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Your totalitarianism is showing again

They had people like you in mind when they wrote this:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[ConHog]

Your totalitarianism is showing again

They had people like you in mind when they wrote this:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Oh? I'm pretty sure I have read you agree that there should be some form of voter exam.