The Red & Black's story noted that House Bill 615, which was introduced in this year's legislative session but didn't even get a vote in the House, could be reconsidered in 2010, the second half of the General Assembly's 2009-10 session. The bill represents a massive rewriting of state law on the carrying of concealed weapons and would, among other things, strike a portion of the law limiting where concealed weapons could be carried.
Under the bill, concealed weapons could be carried everywhere except buildings that house a courtroom, a jail or a prison. It follows on the heels of a state law passed in 2008 that allows the carrying of concealed weapons onto public transportation and into restaurants where alcohol is served, as long as the person with the weapon is not served alcohol.
One thing that House Bill 615 would not dramatically change is the process by which someone can obtain a concealed-carry permit. Other than being at least 21, undergoing a criminal background check, a limited check into mental health, and paying some nominal fees, there is not now, nor would there be under House Bill 615, any particularly stringent requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit.
It is that limited scrutiny of prospective concealed-carry permit holders that makes House Bill 615, to say nothing of current concealed-carry law, problematic.
But for the purpose of argument here, let's concede the point often made by concealed-carry advocates that concealed weapons on, say, college campuses - or anywhere else they are currently prohibited - would have a chilling effect on criminal activity in those locations, because potential criminals couldn't know who might have a weapon that could be employed to stop them and their nefarious activity.
Let's also concede the point that, in the event some deranged shooter begins indiscriminately firing in a public place, having people with concealed weapons firing back at the shooter could serve to limit, or even stop, the loss of life prior to the arrival of police on the scene.
But let's also consider this: If a person is seeking permission to carry a concealed weapon into a public space, where the value of having that weapon in that place is at least partially counterbalanced by the possibility - if not the probability - that the use of that weapon could harm, or end, innocent life, shouldn't that person, at some point in the permitting process, have had to demonstrate some significant competency with the weapon he or she is carrying?
Obviously, that ought to be a minimum standard for issuing a concealed-carry permit. Yet nowhere in the current state law regarding concealed weapons, and nowhere in the bill that could be revitalized in the upcoming legislative session, is there any mention of requiring any such demonstration of competency, or of the even better option of requiring that a concealed-weapons permit applicant obtain detailed and lengthy training in the use of their weapon, including training in deciding when, how and where to employ the weapon.
Frankly, requiring either a demonstration of competency, or detailed training, could help authorities determine whether an applicant who can meet the limited requirements for obtaining a concealed-carry permit does, in fact, have what should be considered the requisite common sense and judgment to decide when - and when not - to discharge a weapon in a public place.
With rights should come responsibilities, and if concealed-carry advocates want to expand the right to carry concealed weapons in public places, where the potential for a concealed-weapons permit holder to cause serious injury or death to an innocent person is clear, they ought also to be willing to accept the fact that people who want that right have a responsibility to show some competency with their weapon.
Post a Comment