I think this information should be public. Permits issued for a wide variety of things are matters of public record. If you want to have a new electrical circuit installed in your home, you need a permit and it is a matter of public record. We can lookup online to see if our neighbors, for example, have gotten the proper permits for work they are doing. The reality is that hardly anyone goes online to lookup such information, but it is available to all. If I can lookup whether my neighbor has gotten a permit to rewire his house, why not whether he has a permit for a gun?
Because there are no criminals who want to break into your house to steal your electrical wiring.
I think the number of criminals who supposedly are enticed to break into a house to steal guns is way overrated. Way overrated. I think it is the fantasy of gun owners that criminals roam neighborhoods looking for houses to case just to find firearms. Out of all the insurance claims for theft that we handle, I can only think of one claim in 20 years in which a firearm was stolen. Jewelry and electronics are the hottest tickets, and they are more often stolen from cars than homes.
And criminals do, in fact, want to steal your electrical wiring. There are far more claims for copper theft than firearms and they are almost equal to jewelry. Pulling electrical wiring out of a wall is too much effort. Stealing copper wiring from construction sites is soooo much easier. So is popping the hood on heat pumps and cutting out the copper tubes. The heat pumps in my building have been struck twice by copper thieves. We also get a lot of claims for theft of catalytic converters.
Why is it annoying?
Mainly because companies can pull the information and try to sell you something, although there can be other reasons as well. For example, I once received a mailing from a company wanting to sell me a "Concealed Carry Badge" to attach to my holster. (In case you're curious or anything, "Concealed Carry Badges" are a very, very bad idea.)
But I have companies trying to sell me things all the time due to information on file with the state. Whether it is a political party or PAC trying to squeeze donations from me for my political affiliation (or lack thereof), companies selling stamps, crimps and registry books for me being a notary public, other insurance companies soliciting me to work for them or trying to sell me leads because my insurance license is public, etc.
If I applied for such a permit, I would fully expect that information to be a matter of public record. I am shocked that it is not.
The whole point of carrying the gun concealed is so that no one will know you have it. Having CCW licenses public record defeats that purpose.
Just because you have a conceal carry permit doesn't mean you carry a firearm every moment of the day. Just because someone has a drivers license doesn't mean that they own a car, much less drive one. Just because I am a notary doesn't mean that I have my kit with me all the time or that I will even be willing to notarize your documents.
On the contrary, I think knowing that someone does
have a conceal carry permit would provide extra protection. If somebody wants to do you harm, they are less likely to do so if they think they are going to be met with deadly force.
If the regulations are such that slight infractions can cause revocations of licenses, doesn't a 0.3% revocation rate seem low?
There are basically two possible responses to this:
1) People with CCW permits are much more law-abiding than the general population. Further, when you carry a gun, you tend to be aware of it, and you also tend to be aware of the consequences of things like letting your gun be exposed.
2) As with any other law that gets broken, you can only face consequences for it if you get caught. If you expose your gun and no one sees it, or no one complains, there is unlikely to be any kind of penalty.
While people who have the permits might, and probably are, more law-abiding, I think that most people with permits likely don't carry their firearms as much as we might think. Some of the people I know with conceal carry permits like to tout their success in obtaining such a permit moreso than actually carring a firearm at all times. More often, the firearm is stored in a desk drawer or underneath a car seat.
Actually, publishing such information wouldn't work against its goals, but would rather support them. One of the famous claims of the NRA is that existing laws are sufficient. Well, if so, prove it. The public's opinion of the NRA would be more positive.
They actually talk quite a bit about that. They also talk about existing laws that don't get enforced, most notably, the almost complete lack of prosecutions for prohibited persons who try to buy a gun on a 4473.
Probably a lack of funding for prosecutions that would be costly, but I agree that we should be doing it. If we are going to have a law, we should enforce it. The same people who proclaim the lack of prosecutions are often intersected with the same people who complain about higher taxes or overzealous prosecutions for people who "just made a mistake". Sometimes the issue is a matter of who is doing the complaining and when.
However, the recent era agenda of the NRA is to eliminate all gun laws, apparently
No -- again, one of the things they're constantly complaining about is criminals who try to buy guns and don't get prosecuted.
I must disagree here. The NRA has shown to be against legislation that the organization previously supported. While there may be nuances to a piece of legislation from 10 years ago compared to today, the NRA makes no attempt to publicize which parts of the legislation have changed to cause them to withdraw support and thereby encourage a change in the legislation itself to make it more acceptable. While the NRA may be relying on the offenders-don't-get-prosecuted defense, it is a smokescreen to avoid explaining why their positions have changed on the major points of previous legislation.
providing actual data about such things would show that not only does the NRA have an interest in having the carry licenses revoked of poorly trained or inobservant permit possessors, but that they have valid data that it occurs at all.
The problem is that the gun debate is so heated that each side thinks that if they give an inch, the other side will jump up and down screaming "Victory!" It's the same reason that the Brady Campaign goes on at great length about what kind of gun safety training should be given to children, all the while very carefully refraining from mentioning that the largest program in the United States, by far, that provides such training is the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program. Neither side feels it can concede anything positive about the other. This is a common problem in many debates, of course, but it's more severe with some issues than with others.
Although I am not familiar with the NRA program or how many young adults it touches, I don't have any reason to disagree with this. Here is the basic problem, however -- the NRA has won more and more concessions about the when, where and how of use of firearms and those who wish to restrict them have won less and less. The NRA doesn't seem to want to come back from the edge of the cliff. While you can point to certain jurisdictions that have tried to provide limits, most of those limits were re-establishing previous limits that were in place before the limits were removed. Only a few actually provided new limits that exceeding anything they previously had, most notably Washington DC, which had its law undone by SCOTUS. However, do we see the NRA stepping in to say what might restrictions might be better to match what the citizens of DC want or hope to have to help reduce crime? No. Even after children in Connecticut were shot in their schoolrooms, the only thing Wayne LaPierre can say is Teachers should be armed. We need more guns in schools
. That is not only tone deaf, it's stupid. The only thing -- the only thing
-- LaPierre said that made any sense was that we don't have sufficient resources in place to detect and treat mental health problems. That part was very true. But guess what? At the intersection of Second Amendment Solutions is the Tea Party that doesn't want to pay one thin dime for anything else. His concession was to identify something for which he knew there would be no hope in passing legislation -- additional spending on mental health care.
I think an assault weapons ban, per se, is not a solution. It's a band-aid because most people don't die as the result of the use of assault weapons. But when legislators cannot enact laws for requiring background checks for gun shows because the NRA is opposed to it, the NRA is a major loser in that argument -- public relations, common sense, human decency ...
My experience in NYC was quite the opposite -- I didn't encounter any circumstances in which I was almost hit by a passing car. I found being a pedestrian relatively unproblematic. However, as a driver, I found NYC to be a stressful place to operate a car. I witnessed pedestrians doing just whatever the hell they wanted to do wherever the hell they wanted to do it. I cannot tell you how many times pedestrians attempted to cross in front of me whenever I had the right of way.
Either way, it sounds pretty unpleasant. I'd like to visit New York City sometime, but I'm not sure whether I'll ever have the nerve, frankly.
Actually, I was impressed with NYC when I visited. As I told Quesi elsewhere, New Yorkers are far less fearful of all kinds of things. They have distinct neighborhoods and they do, indeed, know their neighbors -- most of them, anyway. Unfortunately, my last visit there was many years ago and it was not a trip for pleasure. I was there for obtaining a body from the morgue, planning a wake/funeral and dealing with the estate of the deceased. At the same time, I had a major head cold and my wife was 8 months pregnant. We drove into the city and parked at a Kinney garage for $35/day (that should indicate how long ago that was). I went through parts of NYC that no tourist ever sees. I was quite shocked at how pleasant many New Yorkers were -- many of whom had no idea why we were in their city.
There was one exception, however. The bitch answering the phone for the Bronx Circuit Court. She wasn't just unhelpful, she was testy, arrogant and rude. I was just asking questions about how to proceed with matters of an estate and she hung up on me. She rattled off information all at once ... like an assault weapon ... and expected me to write and understand at light speed. If I didn't get everything the first time, well fuck me and the mother who bore me. Oh, yeah, and her mother, too. *CLICK* She was even less pleasant on my second call ...
The biggest problem with NYC is exactly that -- it's too damn big. It's sometimes easier to travel between boroughs than to move within a borough. Most of my time was spent in Manhattan, and the only borough I missed was Staten Island. Hailing a taxi in Manhattan is easy until you get to about 132nd Street (if I remember correctly, or is it 123rd Street?) -- that's no man's land, or at least it was back then. You're not likely to go there anyway. The Bronx has some old, wonderful apartment buildings that are in dire need of rehab. I'm sure rent control prevents that.
Do yourself a favor and don't go to Times Square. When I was there it was not as fancy as it is now. It was a urine collection location back then. Now, it appears to be an urban version of Disneyland. If you go, pick something specific to go see -- if you like museums or shows, stay in that general area and walk it -- enjoy it like the neighbors do. If you don't, then you are just going to see tourist sites with other tourists and you won't be enjoying NYC, you will just be in it. There's a big difference.
NYC and DC have a lot of similarities. The problem with DC is that people are not typically rude, but they aren't typically friendly, either.